Peacock points out that the word dukkha is misunderstood when it is translated as "suffering" and he is correct. The word dukkha is better translated as "imbalance" or "off centeredness" because dukkha refers to the hub or axle of a wheel being off center and there by causing the cart to bounce and jostle, thus causing the rider to suffer, not from the bumps in the road (suffering that can't be avoided) but from the cart we are riding in (suffering that can be avoided by centering or balancing the axle and hub). The eightfold path is thus the alignment of the wheels of the cart.
Thank you for this. I’ve never heard it explained this way, but it makes perfect sense and is helpful. What’s the linguistic basis for this understanding of the word “dukkha?” I’ve heard it explained in contrast to “sukkha,” which is also helpful. But the wheel and cart metaphor is even better.
@@Alex-wk1jv the middle way is a important idea in the canon. It would make sense for the word imbalance is used vs suffering. “Suffering” doesn’t create itself. The source is our unbalanced understanding. Suffering is created from within, not from external forces. It’s our perceptions ( 6 sense doors) that can create “suffering” and our ideas of our perceptions (6 sense doors) which can cause the imbalance (Dukka) which leads to “suffering”. A small distinction between the two words leads to large disparities between how we would go about curing ourselves from dukka. Dukka is a symptom. Dukka is not a cause.
@@patrickkeyes5916 just a side note: in the Malay language the words suka and duka (modern spelling) are in common everyday use. Suka means to like, as in says suka membaca I like to read.They still retain the flavour of pleasant versus unpleasant.
Only someone who has freed himself can guide others! The risk of you confusing something so simple with so many words and little practice: Knowledge helps, but there is a limit ..... walking the path leads to the destination: "The Way is the Obstacle" .... If you don't sit and meditate, don't neither calm nor wisdom is achieved. When I have questions, I ask them to an enlightened one: Ajahn Suchart Abjato / Q & A Dhamma in English
The West will likely misunderstand Buddhism most of the time. All western Buddhists were attracted to Buddhism from reading; they are previously people of the book. This explains why Mahayana buddhism is more successful than Theravada in the west - there are more books written about Zen or Mahayana. Lately, the canonized text of Theravada, the Pali Canon, has become accessible through the very useful translation of Bhikku Bodhi. Yet when BB gives a sermon to western audience, he seems to always conduct a sort of scripture reading with his students. His approach to teaching appears indeed very similar to how a rabbi or a preacher would go about a holy scripture. Maybe that's what western audiences expect from a religious teacher. Buddhists in Thailand are always more interested in the spiritual aspects of buddhism. Thai monks, some of them very learned in Pali, will explain difficult Pali terms in passages where the Buddha teaches how to guard one's senses or in vipassana methods and techniques. They will be less inclined to relate or comment upon some obscure tales or anecdotes in the Pali Suttas. In short, Thais treat the Tipitaka different from the Torah or the Bible; but I still see western buddhists do the same to Buddhist's text as they do with Bible - that is to be more interested in the details than the spiritual essence. Buddhadasa, the Thai Buddhist philosopher, said that the West may be too materialistic to really grasp Buddhism. One of the central teachings of Ajahn Chah, another Thai Buddhist master, is that one must stop reading books "about" buddhism as the real dhamma cannot be found in books. He said that one must read his own heart to understand the state of things - the core practice of Vipassana.
Thats what Zen made for , when original buddism travel to china ,Language barrier was a big wall to prevent foreigners to dive to the state of his mind. And Zen created to teach without languages. Differrent keys , but lead to the same door.
OX Mezza ok but the true teachings are in the Dhamma and we cannot drift away from the teachings of the Buddha- he is the TEACHER who showed us and revealed to us the nature of life. Why not gain wisdom out of the Buddha's teachings -Theravada Buddhist
The phrase "The West" is a useless phrase really. I've been noticing in books, articles, forumns, videos about Buddhism that its assumed that "The West" holds an atheist materialist Scientismist view of the world, and that to spread "Buddhism" in "The West" one must dumb Buddhism down and turn it into "Buddhism" that lacks all the essential features of real Buddhism because "The West" would never accept the genuine article. But "The West" is no so monolithic. I always thought of "The West" as the Christian viewpoint, souls, heaven and hell, etc. Its strange to me reading Buddhist or supposedly Buddhist authors think "The West" is atheism. As someone who deconverted from Christianity and was a Deist for a long time before becoming interested in Buddhism, I find the so-called "Buddhism" of "The West" laughably absurd. If you're not interesting in authentic Buddhism from the Pali Suttas, just stop calling it "Buddhism" already. What Steven Batchelor and these other dumbasses teach is Richard-Dawkinsism, not Buddhism, and they need to rename it as such.
thucydides Neo, successfull is not in the style of religion :) not in mahayana Theravada in Catholics Christian or hindu or any other style. but when it made you become better person for your self and for surrounding and for universe.
Anyone arguing about what Buddhism is, or disagreeing with this man is missing the point. If you tell others that only your understanding is correct, you already prove you are far away from your potential buddha. Guiding others towards happiness, none suffering and their own experience of the Buddha within is the true nature of Buddhism. Giving. Sharing. Loving. Learning. Wisdom. Peace. Compassion. None judgement. That is my understanding. What he says about changing Buddhism is totally true. Being in the present moment requires a different approach sometimes. Like a river it will flow in the direction it needs in order to reach the sea, without disturbing the land or the living things within in it. The see is endless love, endless compassion, endless understanding and acceptance. It goes on forever.
+Abbie Roberts Hmm... sounds complicated.. what happen if i tell you, a solid rock is also a Buddha. If you understand what i mean than you will understand what is Buddha.
+Max Tan you make it even more complicated, and early buddha's teaching is "Not complicated" and "non sectarian". Buddha is just a name to describe the awaken or enlighten one. A solid rock is definitely not a buddha to me!
Buddha is everything, include the universe. Even earth will be gone "by nature" one day. Like human or any living and non living things... it born, die and reborn again. Only through enlightenment will it be eternal.
+Abbie Roberts The problem is that Batchelor is not loving and compassionate but incredibly arrogant. He may not be ignorant of Buddhism, but he claims to speak for it and its tens of millions of followers, he the White European Westerner who wasn't born Buddhist and who can't even speak any Buddhist language like Sinhala, Nepalese or Cambodian. And it's not just that he is no authority with no right to speak about changing Buddhism, it's also that he is a racist who says that Asians "corrupted" Buddhism. In essence, he is saying that Buddhism needs to be saved by the enlightened White Man from the barbaric Asian races.
+Abbie Roberts let me share what I found about Buddhism over the last 15 years. From my point of view Buddha is a scientist who found or discovered the truth (The nature of mind) like any ordinary scientist do. He is not a creator or almighty, this is where the point 'science of mind' comes into play. He found the theory behind all suffering and the way to get ride off of the same. But how did he find this? He found out after meditating (experimenting on mind) under the tree. And that what ever he said can be proved through our daily experiences like any scientific theories.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. The further you go back in the text, the further you get from religion. It's Buddhism's fundamental practicality that first drew me. The specific development of concentration meditation aids the practitioner in meditating in every moment of their life, as well as cultivates the resilience necessary to live in the world - as it is. The Buddha seemed to recognize that the perception of your experience is never-fixed.
dear kind people, listening to this discussion has reintroduced our total being back into a worldly cycle of thoughts, the feeling of "pedaling a motorbike".
I'm impressed with this event. the knowledge of Buddhism of these two speakers are great, well and deep in the true, real, fundamental of Buddhism. Sadhu!
In general, Buddhism means looking change through changing your's Body, Speech, and Mind Actions. Not believe in external savor. Buddha said you are your own Master. This word dismissed Creater.
People who attack the Buddha's teaching usually are carrying a secret (or blatant) problem with the idea of no god and no self. They are frightened about these facts of reality and respond with anger.
The Buddha was clear that he offered no opinion on God. He was also clear that "no self" is not his teaching, and is a subtle corruption. Instead, he taught "not self," which is to say that upon surveying the field of experience, there is not a thing one can point to and call the self. It's not saying self doesn't exist, but that it is not an object in experience.
Heaven or Hell - it's in your Mind.Pay attention in all your actions. Peace and tranquillity are main points.Think and do good things and purify your minds often. Love others like you love yourself. When you face arguments with anybody, do think that it's the trap tested your emotions and actions. Then you use peace and calm mind in yourself to avoid aggressiveness.These are simple easy ways of being Buddhists.
Speaking as a Theravada Buddhist in Asia, I have found the translation efforts of the modern era to be extremely valuable. Misunderstandings, mistranslation, and misapprehension are all resolved through meditation. If you are lucky enough to be taught by a very advanced monk or arhat, it is very hard to go wrong. However, to remove the concepts of karma and rebirth is to rip out the very spiritual core of the Buddha’s teachings. Moreover, I strongly feel that the farther away Buddhist doctrine keeps from Christianity (particularly Protestantism) the better.
The term "fundamentalist" is used now a pejorative as in this video at 24:15. The definition is defined as "Fundamentalism usually has a religious connotation that indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs". It's a topic that doesn't get much discussion. Would For the Christian, would Christ's accomplishments and the church's sacraments be open to revision and not be "irreducible beliefs"?, etc. Is reading fundamental as the "Reading is Fundamental" children's literacy nonprofit proclaims? Or can using "fundamentalism" as a pejorative be mainly a knee-jerk reaction to certain things we don't like?
You could be amazed by the excellent contributions from Theoria Apophasis to a right understanding of what Dhamma is / isn't by watching his studies on Anatta and Citta right from the Nikāyas.
Over the last couple of millennia, as Buddhism spread throughout Asia and eventually to the west, every culture has added a bit, and sometimes more that a bit, of their own social and religious perspectives to its practice of Buddhism, including, all too often, even the local superstitions. There are many examples of this throughout Buddhism today. The most glaring of which is Tibetan Buddhism. In Tibetan Buddhism the focus is almost entirely upon a myriad of superstitions and various folk religions from that region that have nothing whatsoever to do with what the Buddha actually taught. Go to Dharamsala in India and listen to the Dalai Lama give a talk in English to foreigners, then stick around and get someone to translate that same talk he then gives to Tibetans, and you will see it is stunningly different. If you compared written forms of these talks side by side, you would have a difficult time convincing any outsider that they were talks about the same religion. Almost every Buddhist tradition is guilty of this to some varying degree. My point is that here in the west, while there are some who have managed to get a grip on the Dhamma itself without the religious trappings (Which is not easy to do. It takes work, study, serious contemplation and some research.), many people, as well as filmmakers, in the US seem to be attracted to the more cultural and superstitious aspects - or as some say, the shimmering, cute, cultural curiosities -- that have been imported by various Buddhist traditions. But the Buddha never taught anything whatsoever that would require anyone to “believe” anything. The Dhamma (what the Buddha taught) is not something you need to believe or imagine or have “faith” in. The Dhamma is something you DO. It is a moral, ethical, and psychological practice meant to enrich your life and make it easier to have a more peaceful existence - right now, right here. And not in some imagined future, or in some imagined “spiritual realm”. If you’re interested in the Dhamma, but simply can’t or don’t want to do the research and study, then this rule of thumb may help you discern whether or not something is likely the real teaching of the Buddha: If it offers a simple and pragmatic daily practice to better understand and overcome suffering now, in this life, then it might possibly be something the Buddha taught. If it asks you to commit yourself to quiet contemplation for the purpose of slowing down your thoughts in order to see yourself - your feelings, desires, motivations, states of mind - more clearly, then it might possibly be something the Buddha taught. However, if it asks you, in any way at all, to believe, imagine, find the “right” teacher and listen to him, or to have faith, then it is certainly not a genuine teaching of the Buddha. (The Buddha said that the Dhamma itself is the Teacher.) Likewise, if it asks that when you meditate you try to “stop thinking” (The only time we stop thinking is when we die!), or to focus so intently that you lose yourself in a state of “absorption”, (The purpose of meditation, from the earliest Buddhist texts, is to ‘see clearly’, not to be lost in “emptiness”, which has absolutely no value other than it makes you feel good for a moment.), then it is certainly not a genuine teaching of the Buddha. As well, if it asks you to “make merit”, to concern yourself in any way about the “next life”, or to make special offerings of any kind, then it is certainly not a genuine teaching of the Buddha. One of the greatest ironies of human history, at least when it comes to religion, is that while it plainly states in the earliest texts that the Buddha himself cites reincarnation as a superstition and as one of the many reasons he rejected Brahmanism as a young man, overtime reincarnation, or rebirth if you wish, has slowly been interpolated into various Buddhist traditions and is now considered by many as a “pillar” of Buddhism. In the east, some are saying that in the west we “water-down” Buddhism, which is actually a misguided thing to say. Today, in the west we have a unique opportunity to cull the diamonds from the dung heap of cultural superstition and fanciful history, and get back to the basics of the original and very pragmatic practice that the brilliant Sakyan wise man left for us 2557 years ago. The Buddha said the entirety of his teachings could be summed up in the simple practice of just three precepts: 1. Do no harm, 2. Cultivate good, and 3. Develop the mind. Unfortunately, no one wants to make documentaries about---and monks can’t make a living off of---a basic, pragmatic practice where the bottom line is merely to behave, smile encouragingly to others, and improve the quality of your thinking.
Theja Wickramanayake of all the comments I have read,yours is what seems the most correct. I agree that Buddhists should for lack of a better term go back to the basics.
There is a tendency in the East and the West to oversimplify the Dharma. Zen, for instance, while relying on Buddha's teaching as it reached Japan thru filters, leaves out much, in my experience. Likewise, the Pure Land sect with its reliance on the repetition of "Amitabha". "The Buddha said the entirety of his teachings could be summed up in the simple practice of just three precepts: 1. Do no harm, 2. Cultivate good, and 3. Develop the mind." In what early text do we see that? Can you cite a nikaya where that is the summation of the nikayas? I would really be interested in that translation. You conflate re-incarnation with rebirth. In some circles they are conflated and understood to be the same thing. However, in more technical Buddhist circles, academics, scholars, etc., re-incarnation implies a soul, while rebirth does not necessarily imply a soul. So, the usage of even common terms is neither simple nor straightforward. To merely say "develop the mind" is to miss the specific instructions Buddha gave about mental development. While I took the same path of examining, researching and reflecting on various Buddhist schools, I came to a different conclusion that prevents me from making such a simple summation of the Buddha's dharma. At some level of generalization, your three points are correct, but only as far as they go. People have had that teaching for millenia with no clear evidence that it alone produced awakened beings. These omissions and commisions are not just cultural anomolies, but manifestations of an incomplete understanding of the Dharma.
universities and lecture halls, where Buddhism as it actually is goes to die. Go to a Vihara, monastery, temple, etc., or even just pick up a book of Suttas or Sutras and you will begin to understand Buddhism. If you want a teacher of the Dhamma try to pick someone who is a member of the Sangha or a real life working person who is knowledgeable about their own practice of Buddhism as this is where the Dhamma lies; with people living real lives as monastics or householders. Not people with PhD's who talk about entomology or are actively trying to teach a deconstructed/reconstructed version of the Dhamma they think is correct. upper class Brits are probably not the fount of enlightenment or true wisdom you seek.
Totally Agreed! I'd rather go to a Buddhist Vihara, monastery or temple to listen to Dharma talks than to listen to these academics attempting to explain the Dharma.
I don't understand all of the rage coming from more traditional Buddhists against the Secular Buddhism movement. If the secularists are wrong, and the traditional Buddhists are right, then the net effect is a large group of people who wouldn't, in this life, otherwise be willing to embrace the teachings of the Buddha are living their lives in harmony with the Dharma and noble eightfold path. Surely this is preferable to them living a less harmonious life and not making any progress towards escaping Saṃsāra, is it not?
Very well put. Enlightenment is the point of the exercise, everything else is just decoration. Getting hung up on decoration is what causes religious factions to fight among each other.
Its because secular Buddhists are attacking traditional Buddhism constantly. They say bullshit like Buddha didn't really teach reincarnation, the Buddhist scriptures are wrong, we know what Buddha taught without having to read written sources (As if they have a time machine or something). The secular Buddhists are arrogant atheist pieces of shit. If you want to debaucherize a religion like this, go make a secular Islam, and tell the Muslims how the Koran is all wrong and Mohammed was really an atheist who said there's no heaven and hell, and see how long you live.
@Gwyddion Flint Well I think it's right to say what you say - in a way! Because even though he taught about rebirth, he also taught about No-Self/-Soul...so, it's a bit more complicated than that. Because - what is reincarnated, or for that matter reborn - if there is no Self? Of course I can not answer that question. But I can retell what Buddha himself said about the matter: "As a flame passes from candle to candle, so in the same way you shed your physical body and "take up" another one." The way I understand this, which might be all wrong (since Buddha always stressed practice before metaphysical speculation, and often refused to answer Q's that didn't help the strife towards Enlightenment), but the only way I can understand it is that our "Karmic account/inclinations" is what is reborn.
Only someone who has freed himself can guide others! The risk of you confusing something so simple with so many words and little practice: Knowledge helps, but there is a limit ..... walking the path leads to the destination: "The Way is the Obstacle" .... If you don't sit and meditate, don't neither calm nor wisdom is achieved. When I have questions, I ask them to an enlightened one: Ajahn Suchart Abjato / Q & A Dhamma in English
I see "true Buddhists" constantly criticizing an intellectual and / or academic approach to Dhamma. Which reminds me of this global anti-intellectualizing wave, but this, perhaps, is another matter. I would only make a provocation on this subject. Why is the sharing of theses in the form of words could not be a practice of total awareness? Why this practice can not be done compassionately and impersonally in an academic Community (a type of sangha maybe?)? I speak from my own personal experience. I have a master's degree in philosophy, I never got carried away completely by language games. Study, reading and fraternal discussion have always been for me tools of total concentration and dissolution of the Self. I would like to offer this provocation here.
I am not a scholar of Buddhism. I would like to hear what the Buddha actually said vs how the bureaucracy of formal Buddhism evolved it over time. I would also like to see how Buddhism accounts for the revelations of science over time.
I believe it is important for western people to experience the practise of dharma naturally from the standpoint of where they are as human beings. I believe if the lotus flower of the dharma is to flower in the west, it like any flower will naturally grow in what ever environment by adapting to the conditions.
"An appropriate statement" - he was clearly referring to the spontaneity that 'Buddhism' leads to. When you 'know', you do what needs to be done, you say what needs to be said.
38:40 Sidenote: In the Suttas, Gautama Buddha is rarely referred to as "Buddha". Rather, he is most often referred to as - Tathagata ("Thus gone") by himself - Bhagavan ("Blessed one") by the narrator
Buddha used to refer to himself as Tathagatha literally, one who walks on the truth, broadly all aspects of his being are truth alone, all actions, all speeches, all mental volitions, all findings and discoveries are based on truth, that is, he has experienced them himself.
On the other hand, all his disciples and lay followers would address him as Bhagva meaning one is totally free from all kinds of defilements in the form of craving, aversion and ignorance. That is his all actions are completely pure and wholesome. Be happy always!!!
Only someone who has freed himself can guide others! The risk of you confusing something so simple with so many words and little practice: Knowledge helps, but there is a limit ..... walking the path leads to the destination: "The Way is the Obstacle" .... If you don't sit and meditate, don't neither calm nor wisdom is achieved. When I have questions, I ask them to an enlightened one: Ajahn Suchart Abjato / Q & A Dhamma in English
Very clarifying speech. It is important to understand that what we call Buddhism is a teaching of complete different understanding through eastern philosophy.Thank you for posting this video.
You simply cannot look at a religious tradition from a secular or atheistic perspective without distorting it, no matter how much arrogance Mr. Batchelor might bring to the task. Similarly, you cannot say the west misunderstand a tradition that you yourself so distort. Religions are living, evolving entities. Returning to the earliest practice is a great way to better understand the earliest practice, but it doesn't provide some sort of corrective to naturally occurring religious evolution. Buddhism has always been quite up front about the fact that it adapts to the new cultures into which it moves. That should makes claims of "misunderstanding" that are based in differences from the earliest understandings null and void.
An "appropriate statement" is a teaching that can lead to the awakening of a particular person or persons at a particular time and place. By the way, this particular discussion on "how the west misunderstands Buddhism" is a living example of how the west misunderstands Buddhism.
I've long struggled with Stephen Bachelors teaching but certainly agree with John Peacock about revising the translations of the Suttas and Sutras from Pali and Sanskrit. But the very essence of the Buddhas teaching is perhaps, live morally, seek non attachment, realise that all things pass and if his message is of use to you then use it, engage with it, if it is not then leave it.
No. In Buddhism, it is perfectly fine to criticize the clergy. As long as, his claims are proper, the clergy will have to listen. Almost all vinya law were created after the laypeople criticized the improper behaviors of Sangha. The buddha himself listened and adjusted the regulations accordingly.
I honestly didn't much of this presentation. It's not something I would suggest to someone new to the path of Buddhism. And the thing about suffering in nirvana was just nuts.
Tommy Hunt maybe not. I do not agree with a lot of Bachelors idea 's .His experiences where in the 70thies.A lot has changed over time. But the fact is that the dhamma/dharma has become Buddhism. It has has become distorted by cultural baggage wherever the dharma was teached. . Especially Tibetan Buddhism. Where a lot of time is 'wasted' o how to fold the cloth in the right way. Learning the names of Bodhisattva etc,etc. (let's not start about the golden land buddhists,etc,etc ) The problem with ;eastern forms of Buddhism, is that a lot of people start very motivated (like myself once )But after a while start to notice more and more 'teachings' that have nothing to do with the Buddha or origina l dharma Sometimes not making any sense at all
Ranjit wijesinha 2023 . Buddha attained awakening by meditation under a bodhi tree. Using the breath (Anapanasatii)But JohnPeacock says there is no meditation in Buddha dhamma?
I once read an interesting analogy that buddhism is like a boat to take you from one bank of the river to the other side. Once you arrive at the other side there is no need to carry the boat around with you.
Was viewing and very agreeable about the misunderstanding part of the clip title. None of the presenters seem to know the essence of the Buddha teaching. Therefore, most of the comments do not render to clear the misunderstanding.
Dear StPaulsLondon =) My name is Raymond Lai. I am a member of the University of Sydney Buddhist Society called Unibodhi. I would love to say, thank you, to you for taking the time and effort to both upload and share this video with the youtube family =). I hope you have a lovely day, StPaulsLondon =) Kind Regards Raymond Lai (Member of the Buddhist Family)
As a Westerner, if you can imagine what it would be like to approach Buddhism from an outside point of view. In China you have the jolly fat Buddha that you often see as a statue in restaurants here in the US. Then you find the Buddha of India and Thailand, of Japan and Tibet. The Buddha of contemplation, the Buddha of repose, the Buddha of enlightened states of mind, the deitied Buddha. These all represent Buddha and his teachings in their own ways within a system that is identified through culture, through history and how Buddhism evolved within their own traditions. Most Buddhists will not argue so fundamentally about who's traditions or practices are 'better' as that's rather counter to the essence of Dharma teaching. But you will see an assumption, especially among lay practitioners and common people that their way is the correct one. This is religious belief despite the obvious contradictions. To deny that Buddhism has become integrated with shamanic and other Eastern religions in many parts of the world is to blind yourself to the truth. Even in this thread you see the tendency to defend the tradition the commentor practices. Say to dismiss a Buddhism that incorporates karma, rebirth, Pure Lands, the cosmology of heavens and hells or otherwise defend them as the only true teaching. This is religion, this is how religion is both unifying and divisive. You can see why so many try to distance themselves from this human grasping to certainty and belief. What initially drew me to Buddhism was the pragmatism of the Buddha. It's a practice not a set of beliefs that one holds canonized. One doesn't need to be saved from hell or from fallen nature, one needs to behold their own blindness to the world (both inner and outer, although they mirror each other) from a place of misunderstanding to uncovering what causes perpetual dissatisfaction, anger, hatred and prejudice. It's leaving the question of belief where is lies and actually witness that belief from outside it. It's not a judgment, it's an attention. Unfortunately, Buddhism in most of the world, not just in the West, still grasps onto the rigidity of beliefs, unwilling to set them aside for the practice of freeing yourself, of doing what Buddhism can do. I think I see that even more so in discussions like these.
It is easy to interpret these talks in a way that makes us believe that only the first turning of the wheel of dharma by the Buddha is authentic. But in fact the Buddha turned the wheel of the dharma three times to very different audiences: 1) Hinayana 2) Mahayana 3) Varjayana. These can also be seen as progressive stages on the path. Hinayana being the foundation on which Mahayana and Varjayana build upon. Practitioners of Mahayana and Varjayana are advised to always pay attention to the principles of Hinayana views or else they may stray from the path all together. Likewise, a practitioner of Varjayana is strongly advised to never loose sight of the altruistic view of Bodhichitta described within the Mahayana teachings. Due to human nature some practitioners of Hinayana, and especially within the Theravada tradition, do not accept the other two levels of Mahayana and Varjayana cycles of teachings that the Buddha gave to the world. They strongly oppose the idea that these two additional levels where ever taught by the Buddha. To the extent that some confuse it with geographic appropriation even. Saying things like the only true Buddha dharma exists in Shri Lanka, and the like. They often have strong ideas about people calling themselves practitioners of the Buddha dharma living in Japan, China, Tibet and are calling them heretics, or worse. However, practitioners of Mahayana and Varjayana see all three turnings of the wheel of the dharma as authentic and indispensable levels of teachings given by the Buddha on how to proceed on the path towards liberation and enlightenment. I really hope that this “secular movement” is not turning into a partisanship for Hinayana and a disregard for the immense levels of wisdom in the other two cycles of teachings the Buddha gave the world! That would be a tremendous loss for the whole world. There’s no place for sectarianism within Buddha dharma. It goes against everything the Buddha stood for.
I did, when I was ordained as a novice monk. Meditation bring happiness that can’t be found from other sources, except inner of my soul. It comes from inside, a feeling of elated and happily all the time I meditate. But that state can occurred to any others religions believer if they are practice praying or/and try to look for their deepest reach of the heart through faith, incantation, god image , etc. So, it is not particularly strange thing, however the higher form of dharma can only be reach with understanding of 4 state of truth and 3 great dharma of universe dukha anidjatha and anattha which only limited to Buddhist. Actually I can sit in meditation posture for hours or day without a need for food and water still I do not feeling any suffered from bodily needs. Still mind and body have to coexist, unless one had gain enlightenment on first step or reach first step in jhana. It is a waste to die from ignoring body needs for breathing clothes food medicine and water.
@@kylerasmussen1455 My enlightened teacher told me that “You still far from achieving first enlightenment for you did not see Dhukkha.” I can still this state for year or years, however would not attain a single enlightenment if I did not see how dhukka working on my body or mind. He also said if I died in this state, I would surely becomes one of Bhama(one of higher Buddhist aspect of divinity; a god, not a GOD in Hindu) So, I looking for a dhukka or changes in my mind now. And I could see how my mind working. Still I can’t get enlightenment. I ask my teacher about why? He smiled and said “Deep in your heart, you wanted to becomes one of the Lord; the Buddhas, you walking a path of a Bodai all this time. If you can throw away your deepest wish through life after life. This life is your final. I was shocked because “how did he knew it?”. Still, I told him “I wished to leave monk-hood and back to be an ordinary people who working and dying without stop reincarnated until I reached full state Bodai. Well, now just an ordinary man by now. Nothing unusual now no Divine Eyes ability, no foretelling ability, cannot walking through wall or warping from mountain top to a city. No jhana stated, regretted at first, now nothing regrettable. I see 3 states of truth more clearly as an ordinary man; who living his life in cycle towards death.
Batchelor completely misses the boat when he says that karma is "just Indian thinking" of that time's view of reality. Karma is essential to the Buddha Dharma and without an articulation of karma in the context of Buddha Dharma, there is no articulation of Buddha Dharma. Karma does not come out of the Indian culture, karma comes out of the mind that has plumbed its own depths. That is why karma and rebirth were even found in Christianity until the Catholic church drove it out by the crusades against the Albigensians.
Charles Mendeley Yes, Buddha's great discovery was the view of karma on a psychologically scientific and empirical basis. Karma literally means action, and necessarily implies that actions have results, actions are the seeds that bear fruit. ("You reap what you sow" is karma in the Christian context.) The pre-Buddhist, or we could say pre-awakened, view of karma was about the actions of priests and others for purification rituals in order to remove the bad results of prior bad actions. However, the Buddha changed the view in two fundamental ways: first he said that ritual actions don't purify bad actions, only wholesome actions can create the karmic momentum to change the unwholesome momentum of past nefarious actions. That is why Buddha said "Hate never conquered hate, only loving compassion conquers hate." Second, Buddha discovered that there is no "self" or "soul" or "person" or "spiritual entity" that is reborn, only the karma consequences are reborn. Since there is no self or person being reborn, it follows that there is no birth in the first place, and that the birth of a person is an illusion of self-consciousness. The illusion is effective, but not literally true.
Gregory Wonderwheel Thank you for your comments. just what i wished to convey here. Stephen Batchelor is coming from purely intellect. Buddhism can be approached from many different angles, devotion and faith, intellect and mysticism thus benefitting people of different disposition and temperament.The path may be different but the destination is same.
Who has the right to edit the teachings of the Buddha! Certainly not stephen batchelor with a head full of concepts! If he wants to do his own thing then he should take a few things, put them together, and call it batchelorism, and leave the true Dharma alone! If anyone wants the authentic teachings, then move away from this guy!
+Gregory Wonderwheel Greg. The Buddha never declared kamma was "his" dhamma. Although he certainly taught about kamma, it was primarily a teaching for the laity. What was self-declared to be unique to the Buddha was his teaching of: "the kamma that ends kamma, namely, the noble eightfold path", which relies on what the Buddha declared as his unique & special teachings, namely, the 4NTs, anatta, emptiness, etc.
BarbarraBay Hi, I did not say that Buddha declared karma was "his" Dharma. I said karma is essential to Buddha Dharma, and I said that Batchelor erroneously claimed that karma is "just Indian thinking." The two together do not add up to a claim that karma is just Buddha Dharma. When I said karma does not "come out" of Indian culture but "comes out of the mind" I was speaking from the standpoint of mind, not of culture. To speak from the standpoint of culture, we can say that Buddha grew up in a culture that acknowledged karma from the perspective of the self (atman) and that Buddha's great discovery was the realization that karma actually functions without a self (anatman). So I think we are mostly on the same page with the exceptions that I see the 4 Noble Truths as the first and basic teaching of an outline that was deepened by the lifetime of teachings and that karma was a teaching for everyone of the 4 congregations of men and women, home leavers and home makers.
They both make some good points and have given me a lot to consider, some are quite valuable. I do however feel they do not understand the fabric of Indic or Indian thought, and I certainly do not agree with SB and his constant divorcing the teachings of the Buddha in Indian thought as purely circumstantial. I never really seem to come a conclusion of what SB says, I feel the pair of them could endlessly go on finding intellectual variables while at the same time not offering anything concrete. But it was a good talk, and gives a few pointers for further consideration.
I think that, at this point, the problem with SB's position and secular buddhism in general is that it is more defined by what it denies than by what it proposes. I value his interpretation of rebirth, karma, etc. as cultural aspects of Buddha's teaching because that makes the Dharmma accesible to all cultures without the need to accept unverifiable metaphysical claims (which, in my opinion, can only cause cognitive dissonance to people that didn't born in societies where that is the de facto metaphysical "understanding" of life), but I agree that there is still something concrete lacking in his overall position.
@@patricion.3607 Stephen Batchelor shows no sign that he even understands the basics of dependent origination. If he did, he would not be using a scientific materialistic reading of Buddhism, because that's saying matter is the first cause which the Buddha denounces as Carvaka.
All Buddhist texts are written hundreds of years after the Buddha lived based on the oral traditions. The Buddha lived around the 5th or 6th century BCE. The Pali Canon was written down in stages around 200-100 BCE and the Sanskrit Canon began to be written down around 100 BCE and continued to be written till around 350 CE. The actual dates are debated.
Gregory Wonderwheel The oldest surviving manuscript of a text composed in Sanskrit is an early Bhujimol script. The Devi Māhātmya on Palm-leaf, Bihar or Nepal, 11th century., can you show me the oldest Buddhism and Hindu texts that exists and has been examined as genuine , '' wiki , Since the 19th century, under the dominance of western colonialism and Indology, when the term "Hinduism" came into broad use,[43] Hinduism has re-asserted itself as a coherent and independent tradition.[44] '' , Indian literary production saw a late bloom in the 11th century before declining after 1100 CE. There are contemporary efforts towards revival,
Mal Fabian What is your question? The oldest printed book in the world is the Diamond Sutra in Chinese that is block printed on a scroll circa 868 C.E. and now housed at the British Museum. I don't know much about original hand written manuscripts that are still extant but what is the issue anyway? There is no real controversy about the general eras the Pali and Sanskrit texts were written down, though when any specific sutra was first written down is lost in the sands of time. What difference does it make? My point is that the Pali canon was written down before the Sanskrit canon was, but the Pali canon was still written down hundreds of years after the Buddha and so relied heavily on the oral tradition. Are you claiming otherwise?
Buddhist Monastries doesn't forced people to become a monk. Children who are put into the monastic institutions can be disrobed on certain age or anyone is free to leave Monastry anytime. Taking bless from masters are just mere respect which comes out of disciple heart (just like student and teacher relationship). There is no coerce relationship between the two.
ok so I have a pretty basic question... If "meditation" is not part of early "Buddhism" then....why do so many "Buddhists" do it, and why are there so many paintings and sculptures of the Buddha sitting in meditation? And what DO they call it, if not "meditation?" Is there a word for it at all? "Cultivation"? "Realization"?
There are several kinds of meditations but primarily their purpose is to give us a firm understanding of the teachings and to give us direct experiences to further our progress towards awakening.
Tommy Hunt The Buddha teached the dharma/dhamma. = the noble truths, the .and the 8 folded path. The rest is ..added. There are some great teachings added. Like the Dao , which became Zen etc.But the force in the dhamma /dharma is it's power to 'mix' with new cultures. why stop in Tibet or Japan? Why not use Science or Western philosophy (for instance) to make it more accessible for modern day humans?
Great to discover this. a complex topic navigated in an interesting, clear way. It reminded me of why I found Buddhism (ok forget the 'ism' , call it Dharma) so refreshing, when I came across it many years ago. Batchelor's four points during the Q&A's readily identify what is unique - taken in combination - about Buddhist tradition. His take on them are an inspiration. Funny (and strange) how any, even remotely religious topic such as this attracts hot-heads to the comments threads ... hammering on about phonies, spiritual industries etc. It's worth observing that the word spiritual was not mentioned at all in either speaker's talks. Thanks for uploading.
Philip James thank you for voicing reason, I have to admit a bit of pleasure at how much negative reactivity Stephen Batchelor brings out in people, haha
Buddhism is a part of common human heritage of wisdom by which man have succeeded in overcoming this world and in gaining immortality or deathless life.
Hes mistaken the finger that showing the moon instead the moon itself. At the end Buddha disregard all his teaching this is very crucial for whom following his teaching.
We hear "I" a lots in the talks from these self expressed eloquent gentlemen....... One should Consider the Teachings of The Lord Buddha First then Decide what "School" of Teaching one finds appropriate for the Primary goal of all followers of Lord Buddha is to follow the path and seek enlightenment. Whether the "Schools" of Theravada, basically in South Asia and South-east Asia, Or Mahāyāna, basically in East Asia, Vajrayāna, basically in Tibet, Bhutan, Mongolia and the Russian republic of Kalmykia..... We Strongly suggest that if any wish to understand the Teachings of The Lord Buddha those seeking should study those Living it as with as Phra Ajahn Plien Panyapatipp with Meditation mind envelopment (Citta Bhavana) and other Very Noble Buddhist Monks actually Practising Buddhism. Go to the True source of Buddhist Teachings. Lastly as Buddhism came and developed out of then the tribal lands of Northern India it was well received into such countries as Thailand three hundred years after Hinduism came there and now is the predominant faith. Those that say they practice Buddhism do so with reverence and respect to those other Buddhist Cultures and traditions. The Thai Buddhist Monks and Novices one is well acquainted with are very Respectful, Honourable persons such as the Buddhist Lay people are. As Siddhārtha Gautama clearly chose to do respect the culture he was born in, but as many were like him seeking a way to enlightenment, end suffering Per se. Buddha as the awaken one later said at his earlier searching as others were doing in brahmanism (Early Hindu Religion) He Tried to Cut his way through 'A welter of Views, A Jungle of Views' ....With Mindfulness and Dignity. He also said on Brahmanism "One does not become a brahman by Birth, One becomes a brahman by living well. One does not become an outcast by birth, One becomes an Outcast by living badly!" Meaning rather like a Person is not born a gentleman from birth but by acting like a gentleman..... similarly you are Not a Buddhist merely by name but by Living as a Buddhist, Practising Buddhism to the best of your ability with Mindfulness. Bliss.
True Mindfulness reading your long treatise and it is clear that you have never read Gotama’s actual words. He very clearly disrespected and mocked the religious movements of his time. He welcomed Dalits and women into his practice as equals in direct disregard to the Brahminic status quo of the period. In fact, whether he believed the supernatural or not, he rejected the dependency on them as a necessary explanation for anything. He was a rebel and refuted any attempt to deify him. I would encourage you to read from the Majjhima Nikāya. Best of journeys.
I didn't get the quotes on the experts. Batchelor was a full ordained Tibetan monk who also studied zen at Korea and he continues to study Buddhism after the abdication of the robe, Peacock is a Ph.D who lectures about Asian religions in universities. Together they have decades of experience on the subject. I think it's enough to call them experts w/o quotes and to give them a minute.
I agree, that there is a great difference between "Buddhism" in any of his "interpretations (early indian one, theravada, mahayana, western interpretations etc.) and the "Dhamma" Budda taught. But who the fuck cares. Let those people misunderstand it, till they reach the moment to get another point of view. And who the hell ist Batchelor to think his interpretation is the right one. As he says it is a living force, everyone needs another acess to the understanding as every person has other potential. I started with Vipassana and a strict , a little bit dogmatic idea of the dhamma, as coming from catholicism. After yers of practice I changed my practice and understanding of the dhamma to Zen. Everyone has its own way. Practice more, discuss less ;)
This is why the debate over interpretations is itself misguided and the wrong approach: it'll just be a bunch of different sects borrowing legitimacy from the name of the Buddha and claiming this is what the Buddha actually taught. Instead, one must actually explore the truth for themselves...looking at reality as it is. I just realized I'm making the Zen argument here. But even Zen has become doctrinal and standardized.
The teaching of Buddha? A behaviour of one's own mind learning methods should be a brief answer. When a sexy woman or a handsome young man is approaching you, how do you feel? When someone drops a bag full of cash in front of you or you heard someone is talking bad about you. How do you feel? How you are going to do with that feelings or emotions? How could you overcome the fluctuation of emotions in everyday life and not fall into depression or mental illness. A simple answer from the teaching is to "let go" and try to build up "self awareness(Sati) " as an immune. That is an example of a teaching of Buddha. The lecturer didn't seem to understand it.
Buddha would correct people on their need to categorize to the point of theorizing and drawing illusory constructions (though it does allow to write books, give lectures, and make a career out of it), like seeing a West here and and an East there.
In Abhidhamma It teaches about Mind Mental factors Aggregates How many mind in details, how many mental factors in details, how many aggregates in details. Humen aggregates are composed of terra, air, water and heat and cold. Mind is pure and good. Mind stay inside heart mostly. Mind can visit. Mental factors can manipulate mind. Because of good mental factors, mind become good Because of bad mental factors, mind become bad If we arrive Nibbana, no one can destroy us. We have no aggregate to decay and to be destroy by others. We have no mind to be manipulated by mental factors. Dharma means the Truth Nibbana means Peace
But there is a foundation which unites all other sects, the reason there is a variety of sects is that each emphasizes a particular portion of that doctrine which is the foundation of all Buddhist sects; that doctrine is called "The Four Noble Truths" the noble truth of suffering, the noble truth of the origin of suffering, the noble truth of the extinction of suffering, and the noble truth of the path that leads to the extinction of suffering.
Actually, this video is a wonderfull talk on how dharma teachings can be missunderstood in the west. However the tone of the dialoge is positive. Everything discussed is valid to how the dharma is evolving into a practical way of life in the west. Many of the issues discussed I have gradually become aware of in my practice and study. Still, I'm not sure why you define Mr Peacock as a Guardaian just to quote scripture?
As a whole both seems confused with buddhism on two main aspects. 1st relationship between conventional truth and ultimate truth teachings. 2nd different text of buddha's teachings for different mental disposition.
Each Buddhist sect emphasizes a different portion of the "Noble Truth of The Path Which Leads to The Extinction of Suffering" which is known as the 'Noble Eight Fold Path': 1. right understanding, 2. right mindedness, 3. right speech, 4. right action, 5. right living, 6. right effort, 7. right attentiveness, 8. right concentration. Zen or Chan Buddhism emphasize there style of meditation, for the purpose of deep realization. that would be centered on right mindedness, all other comes along with.
Only someone who has freed himself can guide others! The risk of you confusing something so simple with so many words and little practice: Knowledge helps, but there is a limit ..... walking the path leads to the destination: "The Way is the Obstacle" .... If you don't sit and meditate, don't neither calm nor wisdom is achieved. When I have questions, I ask them to an enlightened one: Ajahn Suchart Abjato / Q & A Dhamma in English
Sometimes, I feel pity to the western people with their own ancient ideology and their research in the small lack of truth. It is correct to accept things with your own common senses and correct consideration but the may miss a golden opportunity to gain the existing knowledge of the Buddha teaching.
Right View(sammaditthi) means that basically,you know what you talk about ,what you think,and what you do. when you talk about ,you know what I talk about and it is good or bad ,right or wrong,and wholesome or unwholesome in any way,action,speech as well.
We can replace the word 'Buddhism' and use 'Buddha Dharma' for modern seekers of Truth (Dharma). See if experience as practitioner without belief (with beginners mind) resonates with the six attributes of Dharma.
This lecture proves that even lecturers don’t know. That’s why to become speaker in Buddhism you need to practice and clear your doubt before speaking. There are only few gurus in Tibet
Comparing the Pali canon with Agama Sutra that can be found in the Chinese buddhist tripitaka will help to understand the teaching of the early days buddhism.
As far as I can tell one of the most uncomplicated, "pragmatic" discussions and presentations of Buddhism I ever witnessed. I used to reply "I'm practising Zen, but I am not a Buddhist. I find it all too complicated and sometimes even nonsense. Sorry. Maybe I just don't understand it." These two gentlemen open a completely different perspective. This is the Buddhism I always thought I could accept. Especially remarkabele I find the reasoning about finding ethical solutions. They can indeed only be found per specific situation and only as an attempt to do justice to circumstances. A "religion" not knowing, accepting and teaching this always seemed lost to me. And now I hear this is the original teaching of the Buddha? Something that, at least, got lost in Christianity - if it was ever there. I feel so glad to hear that. Must read the books these two guys wrote. If it stands the test of scrutiny. 😀😀😀
Brother, Stephen Batchelor has his own bias. It's probably a Post Modernist Bias. Buddha's Original Teachings were certainly FUNDAMENTALLY NON DOGMATIC. Why ? Coz Buddha was a Philosopher and a Psychologist. He did NOT Start a Religion. He was like an Ancient Greek Philosopher. However, just like those Ancient Greeks, he did believe in a lot of Supernatural Stuff. We Secularists are supposed to keep those Supernatural Parts Aside. That's All. Anyway, if you want to Learn Buddha's Original Teachings, there is an AMAZING Channel on TH-cam. It is Probably the BEST Channel on Buddha's Original Teachings. There are more than 300 Videos on the Channel. It is called 'Doug's Dharma'. Please watch the videos. You will be exposed to a Plethora of Knowledge ! Start with the video 'Who was the Buddha ?', uploaded by Doug, on April 19, 2021. Happy Learning !!! 😄
@@DipayanPyne94 Thanks for this information. I know the channel and I follow it losely. Doug is a friendly, even kind, and seemingly extremely knowledgeable person. Lately I decided I should follow what I consider my most honest truth. I know I'm deluded. I just do not know when and how. I certainly will try to learn more about the Buddha and his teachings. But I can not imagine to ever give up my best understanding of the world for teachings I do not grasp... and only can believe.
You don't have to give up anything, brother. If you really want to Learn and Benefit from Buddha's Teachings, you can do so anytime. Look at me. I come from a Scientific Background and discovered Buddhism quite recently. Having studied it for quite some time now, I find it Impossible to Disagree with Buddha's Core Teachings. I don't think I'll ever become a Monk. But, I'll always try to be a better person, thanks to Buddha. I guess what we need to do is Read the Basics and then Practice them in our Lives. A Thorough Reading of the Pali Canon will make it clear to anyone that Buddha's Central Teachings are Completely Compatible with the 21st Century. In fact, they are Eternal and Universal. Anyway, do go through the Core Teachings in the Pali Canon. I am sure that you will learn a lot. But yeah, take all the time you need ! Finally, instead of buying any books right now, I think you should go through Doug's videos first. He himself recommends many books. So, you can watch his videos and read books at the same time. Anyway, take care ! Metta ! 😄
@@DipayanPyne94 I had to look up what "Metta" means only to find out that I completely agree with it. I do not relate to any teacher, even if I admire them very much, as you seem to do. If I try to become a better person it is because it makes my life more complete and meaningful. Any achievement is my own responsibility and only depends on my effort. I found in Zen Buddhism a helpful tool -- and even there I discovered so much too wildly intricate for my taste. But: I will take to heart your suggestion and listen more to Doug. Because really learning is entering unknown territory and I know I have to do it if I ever want to get any further. 😀 So thanks for your advice and, indeed, Metta! 😀
Pleased to hear that, brother ! You studied Zen ? Nice ! Zen is a part of Mahayana Buddhism. The Original Word for Zen is Jhana (Pali) or Dhyana (Sanskrit). Buddha taught 4 Jhanas. As Buddhism travelled from India to other parts of Asia, Jhana became Chan and then Chan became Zen. But yeah, it became more religious over time. The Least Religious is Early Buddhism, as already mentioned in the video above. Anyway, to make it easy for you, here are some of the most important topics that Buddha taught : 01) Dependent Origination 02) 3 Marks of Existence 03) 4 Noble Truths 04) Noble Eightfold Path 05) 5 Precepts 06) 5 Aggregates 07) 4 Brahmaviharas 08) Golden Rule of Morality 09) 5 Hindrances 10) Non Attachment Etc Etc Etc The MOST Important in the Above List is Dependent Origination. It's Really the Foundation of Buddha's Dhamma (Teachings). In fact, there is a Famous Saying in one of the Early Suttas : 'He who sees the Dhamma sees Dependent Origination. He who sees Dependent Origination sees the Dhamma' Also, there are many famous Parables/Similes that Buddha Taught : 1) The Parable of the Raft 2) The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow 3) The Parable of 2 Arrows Etc Etc Etc Anyway, there's SO MUCH ! 😂 It's the Work of a Lifetime, coz after all, Buddha taught for 40 years or so ...
this man was a buddhist monk, who fell in love with a nun he met in a zen monastery, then both left and became lay person. he doesn't believe in the religion that have Creator God, he has quite good training in buddhism but doesnt like it totally, is selective compatitble in most aspects of Sutra. if u find his teaching suitable for u, fine. just note that it is not authentic buddhism from all the main schools of buddhism. but its a free world. if u think he is superior to Guru Buddha Shakyamuni, then enjoy his teachings, bcos his is not Buddha Shakyamuni's buddhism anymore, but Stephen Batchelor Buddhism. for those who are not sure yet, it is best to follow the authentic ones such as HH Dalai Lama who is non sectarian and is well versed in all 4 schools of tibetan buddhism. cheers.
Buddhism or let's say teaching of Buddha, forget about all the teachings and just follow the FIVE PRECEPTS and tell me they are good or bad disciplines. Just 5 precepts alone can determine how fantastic ethics for the human beings..Abstain from killing, stealing, adultery,lying and intoxication..I like the topic...how West misunderstands Buddhism..
To most westerners Buddhism is Zen and Zen means Buddhism. They aren't aware of the 3 major Buddhism traditions Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana and the many different schools like Pure Land, Nicheren, Huayen and so on.
SUTRA'S Scripture written by 'holy men'who claim to have heard the Buddha's wisdom through the intervention of 'higher beings. that does not mean they are not wise and beautiful...But, They have no-thing to do with the original Buddha.
@@theparrot6516 Don't get me wrong. I'm no purist, I think Zen Buddhism (for example ) is a beautiful meeting between Taoism & Buddhism. However it'm just observing . It is claimed Sutras are the 'word of the Buddha ' given trough some inter medium. Just like Paul claimed he spoke for Jesus.
Bachelor really does have no clue for one thing dharma has a number of meanings depending on the context it is used in but there is always a clear context. Dharmas i Abhidarma can be described as ontological units. Dharma in regards to Buddha dharma means the teaching of Buddha. His understanding of Zen and it historical context is awful. Zen does not deny or uphold any particular philosophical stance but its history clearly comes from the Mhadyamika. Having hung out in Buddhist Centers for years does not make you an expert any more than living for years an insane asylum as a pateint makes you a psychiatrist.
This guy talked too much! This is my understanding about some of the Buddha's teachings: Don't believe in something just because tradition and culture tell you so. Don't believe in something just because your parents tell you so. Don't believe in something just because I (Buddha) tell you so. Believe in a subject only after you examine it yourself, practice it yourself and finally find/experience it as truth, nothing but truth. The truth: anitsa, doitka, anata (not sure about the spellings) Anitsa: Transient, imparmenent nature of everything in this multiverse. The karma body (that of human and animals) and the physical? body (that of trees, rocks, etc.) are changing at every moment. Not only in the cells and subatomic nature but also on the surface if you look. The same applies to the mind. Now find the "I" in that changing body and mind. Let's examine the process of "seeing something" and call it "I see something". You want to look first and then look ahead, your mind focus, then the light and photons strike your retina and your optic nerve fires, that goes to some sensory association part of your brain and your mind says "I see". The whole process is very transient, happens in millisecond and then gone. Those photons are gone, the action potential in your optic nerve is gone. Your mind is now on this very sentence of this paragraph now. If you look, you can't find the "I" in this whole process. Doitka: sickness, old age, death, not getting what I want, not being able to freeze my happiest moment (transient nature of time itself) is doitka. Anata: Nothing is in your control. Cells in your body replicating and dying at this very moment, your previous feelings about your ex-wife (u can never recover that love back) nor very skin color nor your below avg height. I have some difficulty understanding this one because your karma (your thoughts and actions) control your body and mind. By meditation practice, you control your thoughts and actions. Anyway, I am not an expert. So the basis is because of what you did, you experience either good/ bad through your six senses (eye, ear, nose=smell, taste, body sensation and mind=the instant of knowing what you see, hear, etc.). Then your conscious mind says "I like it, I want it, no, i don't like it, I'm mad, I'm jealous, etc. Those conscious thoughts not only contribute your actions but also affect your body and your surroundings right at that moment or later in a form of energy and hence called karma. In the whole picture, there is no "I" inside your body or mind. You cannot call your brain "I"(your soul), you cannot call your firing action potentials= your thought process or your conscious which is also transient, the "I". Deep in your cells, your atoms or thoughts, there's no "I" but just changing energy forms. These are falling dominos, billiard balls in colliding motions; connected but different. The same applies to reincarnation process. This is how i understand Buddhism. If you don't believe it, u'll be smitten by lightening and sent to hell:)
You're a puppet and through your 6 senses, which are the strings, the existence moves you. Become aware of the strings, realize you are a puppet on the strings and not something else as your elusive mind suggest to you all the time, and then go and be the puppet with the strings. If you calm your mind, the delusions created by the mind will become calm too, you will see each moment clearly as it is.
Nixihuan-WoMa PeaceLover Ah, well. I guess we learned different forms of Buddhism. I had never heard nibanna being used outside the context of the supreme enlightenment in Theravada Buddhism. Closest things I can relate to those nibanna levels are the jhana levels, which also bring up immense joy and peace as in your "rest areas," although the enlightenment is much more superior and harder to achieve. And since the Buddha did not create -- only discovered Dhamma, I don't think he created the rest area, he just discovered it along the way. Lower jhana levels can be reached even without the guidance from the Buddha's teaching and I think many non-Buddha-follower ascetics from his time have reached it too. Then there are 4 Arupa Jhana levels too--definitely a long way from the lower Jhanas. In Theravada, Arahatship and Buddhahood are equal in terms of being unbound, the difference is in the way they achieved it. I think a Samma Sambuddha is superior from an Arahat, because one found the way himself through countless rebirth and then took the trouble to teach it to the other. I'm not going to rebut or argue. I'm just surprised that we learned somewhat different things. And since I'm a lay follower, not even an ardent meditator, I can't verify anything yet -- besides, its not like anyone can verify anything for another person. And it is not that I am immune to errors in understanding my own religion...
Nixihuan-WoMa PeaceLover Sakyamuni Buddha is Gautama Buddha right? Is he in Saha? And the 10 stages are the 4 NT & 6 paramitas? Or + the Patticasamupada. Is Prayetka Buddha the same as Pacekka Buddha? I had always thought Pacekka Buddha found Dhamma on his own, not through the previous Buddha. And, why would you say that Westerners stop at 4NT, 8NP & Paticcasamupada? I am an Asian, a Buddhist since birth, and I haven't really understood Paticcasamupada, let alone the myriads of other Buddhist concepts written in the suttas. It is so, not only because the concepts are hard to understand, or because I haven't meditate much, but because were caught up in all sorts of rituals instead of discussing the Dharma and practicing meditation. Dharma classes are rare and most often exclusive. Of course, it could be just me being not smart enough to understand it yet (causing misunderstandings which snowballs into plain not understanding -_-) or not rigorous enough in looking for it, but honestly, learning the whole Dharma is not easy task and requires lots and lots of time. Even the Buddha took so many rebirths as a Bodhisattva before his final birth.
Nixihuan-WoMa PeaceLover Many Westerners are into Zen and Tantra too, I think. Westerners who are interested in Theravada have their own reasons, maybe they are guided more by logic than faith. Besides, what do you mean by them not going forth in searching for truth. The True Dhamma has been completely taught by the Buddha, enough to reach the path of arahantship, which is also an unbinding. Why is that not truth enough? If one wishes to go forth becoming a Bodhisattva, which is the objective of Mahayana, it would prolong his enlightment by many assankheya kappas, during which Sakyamuni's Dhamma would have vanished already. Not everyone wants to endure that, I suppose. I haven't had the chance to read much of the Lotus Sutra, they have been somewhat...alien...to me. The Pali Suttas are a lot to digest already. I've come across them every now and then, I agree they read quite differently. Dhamma classes is not quite that easy to find where I live. Or perhaps it's just a matter of my karma not permitting my circumstances right now. Life's a bumpy ride, add a bit misdeed and a past karma into it and it gets much more complicated... :) And that's one lifetime... Yes, rituals can strengthen your faith. Meditation can strengthen concentration. Discussion can correct your misconceptions. Discourses may give you new insights. Everything serves its purpose when in balance. But when everything is just ritual, it's just sad.
Nixihuan-WoMa PeaceLover Well, different opinions are just different. I leave it there. I think an Arhat has completed the whole journey. They have gone beyond the clinging of any sort of bliss, whether rupa or arupa. So I think Arhathood is just as good unbinding as Buddhahood, just quicker and less original than being a Samma Sambuddha or a Pacceka Buddha. None of us can say otherwise to one another though, because none of us has experienced it ourselves. Even if anyone did, the testimony must be taken by faith. Sakyamuni Buddha found the way to Buddhahood (in the current world cycle), including what you called the rest area, but I doubt he created it -- He named it, perhaps. Buddhas throughout ages have discovered it, so no one really created it. The Dhamma He taught is already perfect by the time he reached Parinibanna. What was His point of teaching the Dhamma if it didn't lead to unbinding? To keep his disciples in joy? But he did not teach his disciples to dwell in joy, did he? I think it is described in the suttas that Arhats are free from clinging to any bliss and joy. Time is almost meaningless if we account for each of our birth in the past and in the future. Cycle after cycle -- time is infinite in that sense, and we are trapped in it. Because it is such an expanse of time, we cannot be sure that we will become exactly what we set out to be. We may follow the Dhamma one lifetime, but in the next -- because of the randomness birth factors of most un-enlighened beings -- we may be born in a place/time where following Dhamma is not possible, or when Dhamma has been extinguished. And thus began a downward spiral into lesser births, down and up and down it goes -- prolonging Dukkha (unless you've reached stream entry/sotapanna). I think that is why the Buddha taught Dhamma and encourage his students, and anyone who has the potential, to always cultivate the mind and reach arhathood as soon as they can. If one is steadfast and lucky enough, one day, one may meet one of the very rare Buddhas, and declare the vow of becoming a Bodhisattva in front of him, after which he must be ready to commit infinite selflessness for stretches of Assankheya kappas, in order to help one of the future "batches" of Dhamma-less mankind. That's an unbelievable amount of sacrifices, and time -- as seen in the Jataka stories. I agree with you. Logically understanding written words about Dhamma, such as the Tilakkhana, 5 Niyamas, 4NTs, 8 NPs, Patticasamupada,12 nidannas, 7 Factors of enlightenment, the Abidhamma Pitaka, etc satisfies our curiosity, but realizing it completely is much harder, probably requires lots of both reading and meditation that a lifetime is not enough. I won't call you Mara or anything. We are both students of the Buddha, unless the Buddha himself is here to reprimand either of us for our wrong views, I'd say it's pretty hard to say whether any or both of us is right or wrong.
Today's practices aren't in contradiction to Buddha's teachings as you suggest. A teacher is required to guide you towards the path, to teach you the path - the self-reliance only relates you yourself taking onus for walking on the path - no one can do that for you and in a sense it is empowering that you have the potential to accomplish this. But you do need someone to tell you what the path is - that's why a teacher is necessary.
***** Hah...just about all the basic Buddhist tenets, he has what is simply call Wrong View that denies Karma & Rebirth & to try claim he's Buddhist with such an attitude is bull shit of the highest order whether people like it or not!!! Too little practice & too much thinking. He typifies a lot of the Western attitude to "philosophy", lots of thought but no practice !!!
PuggiTheGreat So have you studied the earliest Buddhist Pali cannons yourself then? Can you do better than Batchelor on elucidating the 4 main points of what the Buddha actually taught, that mark out the revolutionary nature of Buddhist thought as different from the thinking of his day eg Hinduism? With your scornful attitude of arrogant derision towards Batchelor's tentative and thoughtful insights and understanding of what marked out Buddha's thinking from the thinking of his time, you merely typify the attitude of all the ignorant fools who run around judging and dismissing everyone else's views, while assuming you yourself know it all, full of pride, arrogance and bullshit yourself. Too much self-assured arrogant judgementalism and not enough practice yourself, methinks. "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts" (Bertrand Russell) It's clear which of these two groups you belong to, and which one Batchelor does.
yogalinda LOOK...Hinduism did NOT exist at the time of Lord Buddha, you can at least do your history before "trying" to have a go at me. Karma for example was NOT accepted by most people back then and nor was the general idea of rebirth...If you don't want to accept Buddhist teachings then don't but do not be like Batchelor and try play silly games. YOU tell me, what is so great about his ideas, he says nothing original, nothing at all, he's an intellectual coward ... You think Batchelor thoughtful LMFAO, go buy a real book ! Tell me, have you ever studied pratityasamutpada, err, no, or ya would not ask silly questions YOU talk about me being full of pride & arrogant and implicitly call me a fool and fanatic, oh please, get a life ya silly feck ! He is wrong and even a cursory reading of Buddhist lit would tell you that... And YES I have made a study of Buddhism, I've been a Buddhist all my life and am ex Monk of 10 years or so (is that good enough for you), I'm 54 not some kid...and please, oh please don't go into some stupid moral diatribe because I am not being appropriately polite to you in a Buddhist sense (pop goes the stereotype ho ho ho !) I will tell you now he's a laughing stock in the Buddhist world, plus he's disingenuous but we have to put up with him barstadising Dharma because people like you listen to him and think he makes some kind of valid point and I tell you now he does not ! He says nothing original, is not even a good debater and if you knew your subject you would know that but most are just polite with this buffoon...Buddha once met someone like him during his life who wanted to take some kind of control and do you know what the Buddha said, he said he would rather spit vomit & blood, aye, even the Buddha used strong language when necessary.... This is my little rhetorical diatribe which I hope you like for I see no advantage in talking Buddhist tenets with you if you mention none, do you know what they are, tell ya wot, go google it hahaa ! Or go do some yoga. God save us all from new age intellectual yoga type dweeds !!!! If it was not for uneducated peeps like yourself I would not even have to reply. Oh oh, he's also a laughing stock in the academic world as well.... NOW, go do some OMs, eat some legumes, or go talk to your angel, but don't talk about things ya know nothing about, you're out of ya depth, or you can prove me wrong by saying something clever instead of a rather lame ad hominem (mine if much better ROFL). Your name "yogalinda" says it all & screams NEEEEW AGE ! Stay wi ya yoga and do some more Oms, or Krishnas, or commune with your angel or whatever it is that people like you do, or go read patanjali & try pretend he didn't nick stuff from Buddhadharma...Ha ! ...
Of course Hinduism existed at the time of Buddha - it's the world's oldest religion! Buddha's lifetime coincided exactly with the flourishing of Vedic Brahmins and if you study the Vedanta you can see a lot of similarities between Buddha's thought and the Vedanta. I'm not interested in a one-upmanship game about who knows more about anything. One thing is clear about you - that despite your supposed years of study and practice of supposed "Buddhism" - in terms of your levels of self-awareness and Right Speech you clearly have learnt very little indeed. Your assumption about my name's implications are just that - your assumption. I used to teach yoga and it was a catchy name for people to remember my website, that's all. Now go and manifest yourself as Vajrayogini or whomever and keep on bolstering your pride at how much better than the likes of Stephen Batchelor you are. He is obviously a laughing stock amongst you and your gang of supposed "Buddhists" (ha!), but he is most defintely not a laughing stock in the entire Buddhist world. If anyone is giving Buddhism a bad name it is people like you, not Batchelor, so full of yourself with your arrogant dismissive pride. If by practising and studying Buddhism for 30 years plus I'll end up like you, I certainly won't bother.
The secular Buddhists don't want you to see this: 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). Secular Buddhists are skeptical of rebirth and karma and even nirvana. Could they be wrong? Yes.
on the other hand, the other side could be wrong on their overall presentation of the ideas. of course this just comes down to how we interpret existence, there are many ways rebirth and karma can be both literal and metaphorical, rebirth could be a beautiful metaphor for many things, such as, i am here, and you are here, and we are the progeny of the cultivation of life on earth over time. and it flows. life flows life every cycle in the world, we work within its laws and move within it at all times to achieve our needs and goals... while also being nothing but a manifestation of the universe to live and die in samsara. i dont know about the fact about certain conscious beings being directly tied and knowing to be the same thing, like a person who claims to have directly been another organism under a different name or skinb ut the same consciousness. what if the same consciousness simply is being misunderstood, maybe it is just a metaphor. maybe this "higher consciousness", if you can call it that, is simply akin to tao. i know nirvana can exist as escaping suffering while being a part of the universes game. i dont see why believing in being reincarnated through multiple lives to finally achieve nirvana makes any sense. there is a here and now and we are all experiencing it and we all have the possibility of buddhahood, this is what the buddha said!
We'll never know what the Buddha had in mind or whether his words were even recorded accurately. That's not what matters. What matters is what's true, and the writings about what the Buddha may or may not have said, are nonetheless incredibly important because they, more clearly than many others before them, have pointed to the now-scientifically validated theory of no-self, which makes all concerns about "what happens when I die" completely moot. It's irrational to fear "your own" death any more than you fear a complete stranger's death, because the person with your DNA pattern tomorrow, and the person with your DNA pattern who will die in the future, will not be "you", will not be experienced by you, any more than any other person is experienced as you. They'll simply have some of the same memories, and might remember these ponderings and falsely identify with you just as you falsely identify with them. But they won't be you. You'll already be dead. Every moment of every day, the instant of consciousness that there was a moment before, is dead. When the pattern of thoughts that is your mind realises that, and ceases to conflate different moments of consciousness under a singular identity, then in at least one highly important sense, the endless "cycle of rebirth" that causes suffering will stop, as there's no more illusion that the same person is waking up each morning. To either cling to, or fear, the possibility of a literal rebirth of this life's mind-pattern, are both nonsensical if there is no more illusory belief that you, as any given conscious moment, are going to be the one experiencing it. If it ends, no literal rebirth, you won't be the one experiencing its loss. If it continues, you still won't be the one experiencing each new moment of consciousness associated with it, any more than you'll be the one experiencing old age.
the doctrine of rebirth isn't a metaphor. I don't understand why westerners have so much trouble with it that they can't even accept that the doctrine is what it is, rather then just not believing in it
optifog "the person with your DNA pattern tomorrow, and the person with your DNA pattern who will die in the future, will not be "you", will not be experienced by you, any more than any other person is experienced as you." The person I will be in the future will certainly be experienced by me more then other people are experienced by me. I don't experience any other person except the person I am in the present, the person I was in the past and the person I will be in the future.
***** There's absolutely no difference, you who are conceptualising this sentence experience being someone else *exactly* the same amount as you experience being *you* in the future - not at all. The people you think of as "you" (conscious instants) generated by the same brain, who will be conscious instants *of the memory laid down of this moment*, will *falsely identify* with you, the conscious instant of this moment. It's just like someone getting engrossed in a film recording of an event they were *Not* there to experience, watching it later and genuinely believing that they were the person in the recording, just because it's so engrossing and they have no other memories of being outside of this hypothetical cinema, the images (memories) displayed are all they know, and they don't know it's a cinema, so they think they're "reliving" something *they* lived, when really they're watching a recording of something someone *completely* separate, but simply generated by the same machine, lived.
Peacock points out that the word dukkha is misunderstood when it is translated as "suffering" and he is correct. The word dukkha is better translated as "imbalance" or "off centeredness" because dukkha refers to the hub or axle of a wheel being off center and there by causing the cart to bounce and jostle, thus causing the rider to suffer, not from the bumps in the road (suffering that can't be avoided) but from the cart we are riding in (suffering that can be avoided by centering or balancing the axle and hub). The eightfold path is thus the alignment of the wheels of the cart.
Thank you for this. I’ve never heard it explained this way, but it makes perfect sense and is helpful.
What’s the linguistic basis for this understanding of the word “dukkha?” I’ve heard it explained in contrast to “sukkha,” which is also helpful. But the wheel and cart metaphor is even better.
Thank you for providing such a wonderful explanation of dukkha. I've never heard it laid out this way. What you say makes perfect sense.
@@Alex-wk1jv the middle way is a important idea in the canon. It would make sense for the word imbalance is used vs suffering. “Suffering” doesn’t create itself. The source is our unbalanced understanding. Suffering is created from within, not from external forces. It’s our perceptions ( 6 sense doors) that can create “suffering” and our ideas of our perceptions (6 sense doors) which can cause the imbalance (Dukka) which leads to “suffering”. A small distinction between the two words leads to large disparities between how we would go about curing ourselves from dukka. Dukka is a symptom. Dukka is not a cause.
Read that long ago nothing new
@@patrickkeyes5916 just a side note: in the Malay language the words suka and duka (modern spelling) are in common everyday use. Suka means to like, as in says suka membaca I like to read.They still retain the flavour of pleasant versus unpleasant.
Buddhism has helped me.
The teachings are easy for me to understand
Only someone who has freed himself can guide others! The risk of you confusing something so simple with so many words and little practice: Knowledge helps, but there is a limit ..... walking the path leads to the destination: "The Way is the Obstacle" .... If you don't sit and meditate, don't neither calm nor wisdom is achieved. When I have questions, I ask them to an enlightened one: Ajahn Suchart Abjato / Q & A Dhamma in English
@@martinesakulku6546 Because it deals with you & every human being not god.
me too
The people turning the lights off after this lecture and cleaning the room will be practising Buddhism.
yeah, batchelor's warped/edited version of it!
Simeon Banner this room will become a meditation hall or Vipassana (10 days noble silence)
The West will likely misunderstand Buddhism most of the time. All western Buddhists were attracted to Buddhism from reading; they are previously people of the book. This explains why Mahayana buddhism is more successful than Theravada in the west - there are more books written about Zen or Mahayana. Lately, the canonized text of Theravada, the Pali Canon, has become accessible through the very useful translation of Bhikku Bodhi. Yet when BB gives a sermon to western audience, he seems to always conduct a sort of scripture reading with his students. His approach to teaching appears indeed very similar to how a rabbi or a preacher would go about a holy scripture.
Maybe that's what western audiences expect from a religious teacher. Buddhists in Thailand are always more interested in the spiritual aspects of buddhism. Thai monks, some of them very learned in Pali, will explain difficult Pali terms in passages where the Buddha teaches how to guard one's senses or in vipassana methods and techniques. They will be less inclined to relate or comment upon some obscure tales or anecdotes in the Pali Suttas. In short, Thais treat the Tipitaka different from the Torah or the Bible; but I still see western buddhists do the same to Buddhist's text as they do with Bible - that is to be more interested in the details than the spiritual essence.
Buddhadasa, the Thai Buddhist philosopher, said that the West may be too materialistic to really grasp Buddhism. One of the central teachings of Ajahn Chah, another Thai Buddhist master, is that one must stop reading books "about" buddhism as the real dhamma cannot be found in books. He said that one must read his own heart to understand the state of things - the core practice of Vipassana.
Thats what Zen made for , when original buddism travel to china ,Language barrier was a big wall to prevent foreigners to dive to the state of his mind.
And Zen created to teach without languages. Differrent keys , but lead to the same door.
OX Mezza ok but the true teachings are in the Dhamma and we cannot drift away from the teachings of the Buddha- he is the TEACHER who showed us and revealed to us the nature of life. Why not gain wisdom out of the Buddha's teachings -Theravada Buddhist
The phrase "The West" is a useless phrase really. I've been noticing in books, articles, forumns, videos about Buddhism that its assumed that "The West" holds an atheist materialist Scientismist view of the world, and that to spread "Buddhism" in "The West" one must dumb Buddhism down and turn it into "Buddhism" that lacks all the essential features of real Buddhism because "The West" would never accept the genuine article. But "The West" is no so monolithic. I always thought of "The West" as the Christian viewpoint, souls, heaven and hell, etc. Its strange to me reading Buddhist or supposedly Buddhist authors think "The West" is atheism. As someone who deconverted from Christianity and was a Deist for a long time before becoming interested in Buddhism, I find the so-called "Buddhism" of "The West" laughably absurd. If you're not interesting in authentic Buddhism from the Pali Suttas, just stop calling it "Buddhism" already. What Steven Batchelor and these other dumbasses teach is Richard-Dawkinsism, not Buddhism, and they need to rename it as such.
The West can only do better - and indeed no worse - than the atrocious butchery inflicted upon Buddhism by dysfunctional Eastern cultures.
thucydides Neo,
successfull is not in the style of religion :)
not in mahayana Theravada in Catholics Christian or hindu or any other style.
but when it made you become better person for your self and for surrounding and for universe.
Anyone arguing about what Buddhism is, or disagreeing with this man is missing the point. If you tell others that only your understanding is correct, you already prove you are far away from your potential buddha. Guiding others towards happiness, none suffering and their own experience of the Buddha within is the true nature of Buddhism. Giving. Sharing. Loving. Learning. Wisdom. Peace. Compassion. None judgement. That is my understanding. What he says about changing Buddhism is totally true. Being in the present moment requires a different approach sometimes. Like a river it will flow in the direction it needs in order to reach the sea, without disturbing the land or the living things within in it. The see is endless love, endless compassion, endless understanding and acceptance. It goes on forever.
+Abbie Roberts Hmm... sounds complicated.. what happen if i tell you, a solid rock is also a Buddha. If you understand what i mean than you will understand what is Buddha.
+Max Tan you make it even more complicated, and early buddha's teaching is "Not complicated" and "non sectarian". Buddha is just a name to describe the awaken or enlighten one.
A solid rock is definitely not a buddha to me!
Buddha is everything, include the universe. Even earth will be gone "by nature" one day.
Like human or any living and non living things... it born, die and reborn again. Only through enlightenment will it be eternal.
+Abbie Roberts The problem is that Batchelor is not loving and compassionate but incredibly arrogant. He may not be ignorant of Buddhism, but he claims to speak for it and its tens of millions of followers, he the White European Westerner who wasn't born Buddhist and who can't even speak any Buddhist language like Sinhala, Nepalese or Cambodian. And it's not just that he is no authority with no right to speak about changing Buddhism, it's also that he is a racist who says that Asians "corrupted" Buddhism. In essence, he is saying that Buddhism needs to be saved by the enlightened White Man from the barbaric Asian races.
+Abbie Roberts let me share what I found about Buddhism over the last 15 years. From my point of view Buddha is a scientist who found or discovered the truth (The nature of mind) like any ordinary scientist do. He is not a creator or almighty, this is where the point 'science of mind' comes into play. He found the theory behind all suffering and the way to get ride off of the same. But how did he find this? He found out after meditating (experimenting on mind) under the tree. And that what ever he said can be proved through our daily experiences like any scientific theories.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. The further you go back in the text, the further you get from religion. It's Buddhism's fundamental practicality that first drew me. The specific development of concentration meditation aids the practitioner in meditating in every moment of their life, as well as cultivates the resilience necessary to live in the world - as it is. The Buddha seemed to recognize that the perception of your experience is never-fixed.
dear kind people, listening to this discussion has reintroduced our total being back into a worldly cycle of thoughts, the feeling of "pedaling a motorbike".
Not to be confused with, peddling a motorbike.
I'm impressed with this event. the knowledge of Buddhism of these two speakers are great, well and deep in the true, real, fundamental of Buddhism.
Sadhu!
In general, Buddhism means looking change through changing your's Body, Speech, and Mind Actions. Not believe in external savor. Buddha said you are your own Master. This word dismissed Creater.
Absolutely true...
I think it means stop relying on hacks and start grinding
Good luck "been" your own "master" with your human imperfections
Esto es uno de los errores que precisamente mencionan en él vídeo . Se "manoseo" la información, dándole un tinte metafísico.
It's not about being your own master - everything is transcendent. What appears to be physical is born or of that transcendence.
People who attack the Buddha's teaching usually are carrying a secret (or blatant) problem with the idea of no god and no self. They are frightened about these facts of reality and respond with anger.
As a Buddhist I find the idea of no God and self to be very concerning
And for good reason... its Nihlism. It's also nowhere taught by Gotoma.
The Buddha was clear that he offered no opinion on God. He was also clear that "no self" is not his teaching, and is a subtle corruption. Instead, he taught "not self," which is to say that upon surveying the field of experience, there is not a thing one can point to and call the self. It's not saying self doesn't exist, but that it is not an object in experience.
Heaven or Hell - it's in your Mind.Pay attention in all your actions. Peace and tranquillity are main points.Think and do good things and purify your minds often. Love others like you love yourself. When you face arguments with anybody, do think that it's the trap tested your emotions and actions. Then you use peace and calm mind in yourself to avoid aggressiveness.These are simple easy ways of being Buddhists.
Motanee Than thank you for this great summary 👍
@Abhi I'm a Buddhist and I'm not trying to attain enlightenment. That's like saying most laypeople aren't Buddhist.
@Abhi I disagree. Do you know anything about these three religiouns?
What a bunch of bollocks.
Everything after "pay attention in all your actions". It's the same religious nonsense found in every other tradition.
Speaking as a Theravada Buddhist in Asia, I have found the translation efforts of the modern era to be extremely valuable. Misunderstandings, mistranslation, and misapprehension are all resolved through meditation. If you are lucky enough to be taught by a very advanced monk or arhat, it is very hard to go wrong. However, to remove the concepts of karma and rebirth is to rip out the very spiritual core of the Buddha’s teachings. Moreover, I strongly feel that the farther away Buddhist doctrine keeps from Christianity (particularly Protestantism) the better.
The term "fundamentalist" is used now a pejorative as in this video at 24:15. The definition is defined as "Fundamentalism usually has a religious connotation that indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs". It's a topic that doesn't get much discussion. Would For the Christian, would Christ's accomplishments and the church's sacraments be open to revision and not be "irreducible beliefs"?, etc. Is reading fundamental as the "Reading is Fundamental" children's literacy nonprofit proclaims? Or can using "fundamentalism" as a pejorative be mainly a knee-jerk reaction to certain things we don't like?
sadhu sadhu sadhu...(wonderfully said...life affirming...insightful...beautifully spoken)
You could be amazed by the excellent contributions from Theoria Apophasis to a right understanding of what Dhamma is / isn't by watching his studies on Anatta and Citta right from the Nikāyas.
Over the last couple of millennia, as Buddhism spread throughout Asia and eventually to the west, every culture has added a bit, and sometimes more that a bit, of their own social and religious perspectives to its practice of Buddhism, including, all too often, even the local superstitions. There are many examples of this throughout Buddhism today. The most glaring of which is Tibetan Buddhism. In Tibetan Buddhism the focus is almost entirely upon a myriad of superstitions and various folk religions from that region that have nothing whatsoever to do with what the Buddha actually taught. Go to Dharamsala in India and listen to the Dalai Lama give a talk in English to foreigners, then stick around and get someone to translate that same talk he then gives to Tibetans, and you will see it is stunningly different. If you compared written forms of these talks side by side, you would have a difficult time convincing any outsider that they were talks about the same religion. Almost every Buddhist tradition is guilty of this to some varying degree. My point is that here in the west, while there are some who have managed to get a grip on the Dhamma itself without the religious trappings (Which is not easy to do. It takes work, study, serious contemplation and some research.), many people, as well as filmmakers, in the US seem to be attracted to the more cultural and superstitious aspects - or as some say, the shimmering, cute, cultural curiosities -- that have been imported by various Buddhist traditions. But the Buddha never taught anything whatsoever that would require anyone to “believe” anything. The Dhamma (what the Buddha taught) is not something you need to believe or imagine or have “faith” in. The Dhamma is something you DO. It is a moral, ethical, and psychological practice meant to enrich your life and make it easier to have a more peaceful existence - right now, right here. And not in some imagined future, or in some imagined “spiritual realm”. If you’re interested in the Dhamma, but simply can’t or don’t want to do the research and study, then this rule of thumb may help you discern whether or not something is likely the real teaching of the Buddha: If it offers a simple and pragmatic daily practice to better understand and overcome suffering now, in this life, then it might possibly be something the Buddha taught. If it asks you to commit yourself to quiet contemplation for the purpose of slowing down your thoughts in order to see yourself - your feelings, desires, motivations, states of mind - more clearly, then it might possibly be something the Buddha taught. However, if it asks you, in any way at all, to believe, imagine, find the “right” teacher and listen to him, or to have faith, then it is certainly not a genuine teaching of the Buddha. (The Buddha said that the Dhamma itself is the Teacher.) Likewise, if it asks that when you meditate you try to “stop thinking” (The only time we stop thinking is when we die!), or to focus so intently that you lose yourself in a state of “absorption”, (The purpose of meditation, from the earliest Buddhist texts, is to ‘see clearly’, not to be lost in “emptiness”, which has absolutely no value other than it makes you feel good for a moment.), then it is certainly not a genuine teaching of the Buddha. As well, if it asks you to “make merit”, to concern yourself in any way about the “next life”, or to make special offerings of any kind, then it is certainly not a genuine teaching of the Buddha. One of the greatest ironies of human history, at least when it comes to religion, is that while it plainly states in the earliest texts that the Buddha himself cites reincarnation as a superstition and as one of the many reasons he rejected Brahmanism as a young man, overtime reincarnation, or rebirth if you wish, has slowly been interpolated into various Buddhist traditions and is now considered by many as a “pillar” of Buddhism. In the east, some are saying that in the west we “water-down” Buddhism, which is actually a misguided thing to say. Today, in the west we have a unique opportunity to cull the diamonds from the dung heap of cultural superstition and fanciful history, and get back to the basics of the original and very pragmatic practice that the brilliant Sakyan wise man left for us 2557 years ago. The Buddha said the entirety of his teachings could be summed up in the simple practice of just three precepts: 1. Do no harm, 2. Cultivate good, and 3. Develop the mind. Unfortunately, no one wants to make documentaries about---and monks can’t make a living off of---a basic, pragmatic practice where the bottom line is merely to behave, smile encouragingly to others, and improve the quality of your thinking.
Theja Wickramanayake of all the comments I have read,yours is what seems the most correct. I agree that Buddhists should for lack of a better term go back to the basics.
From my newly found knowledge. Buddhism is not a religion. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
There is a tendency in the East and the West to oversimplify the Dharma. Zen, for instance, while relying on Buddha's teaching as it reached Japan thru filters, leaves out much, in my experience. Likewise, the Pure Land sect with its reliance on the repetition of "Amitabha".
"The Buddha said the entirety of his teachings could be summed up in the simple practice of just three precepts: 1. Do no harm, 2. Cultivate good, and 3. Develop the mind." In what early text do we see that? Can you cite a nikaya where that is the summation of the nikayas? I would really be interested in that translation.
You conflate re-incarnation with rebirth. In some circles they are conflated and understood to be the same thing. However, in more technical Buddhist circles, academics, scholars, etc., re-incarnation implies a soul, while rebirth does not necessarily imply a soul. So, the usage of even common terms is neither simple nor straightforward.
To merely say "develop the mind" is to miss the specific instructions Buddha gave about mental development. While I took the same path of examining, researching and reflecting on various Buddhist schools, I came to a different conclusion that prevents me from making such a simple summation of the Buddha's dharma. At some level of generalization, your three points are correct, but only as far as they go. People have had that teaching for millenia with no clear evidence that it alone produced awakened beings.
These omissions and commisions are not just cultural anomolies, but manifestations of an incomplete understanding of the Dharma.
Very true. Only in shrilanka have authentic Buddhism, Theravada . Very true.
universities and lecture halls, where Buddhism as it actually is goes to die. Go to a Vihara, monastery, temple, etc., or even just pick up a book of Suttas or Sutras and you will begin to understand Buddhism. If you want a teacher of the Dhamma try to pick someone who is a member of the Sangha or a real life working person who is knowledgeable about their own practice of Buddhism as this is where the Dhamma lies; with people living real lives as monastics or householders. Not people with PhD's who talk about entomology or are actively trying to teach a deconstructed/reconstructed version of the Dhamma they think is correct. upper class Brits are probably not the fount of enlightenment or true wisdom you seek.
Totally Agreed! I'd rather go to a Buddhist Vihara, monastery or temple to listen to Dharma talks than to listen to these academics attempting to explain the Dharma.
Just for the record, SB is not an academic. He is a former monk in two traditions (tibetan and seon)
Looks like you didn't catch it, pal.
I don't understand all of the rage coming from more traditional Buddhists against the Secular Buddhism movement. If the secularists are wrong, and the traditional Buddhists are right, then the net effect is a large group of people who wouldn't, in this life, otherwise be willing to embrace the teachings of the Buddha are living their lives in harmony with the Dharma and noble eightfold path. Surely this is preferable to them living a less harmonious life and not making any progress towards escaping Saṃsāra, is it not?
Very well put. Enlightenment is the point of the exercise, everything else is just decoration. Getting hung up on decoration is what causes religious factions to fight among each other.
Its because secular Buddhists are attacking traditional Buddhism constantly. They say bullshit like Buddha didn't really teach reincarnation, the Buddhist scriptures are wrong, we know what Buddha taught without having to read written sources (As if they have a time machine or something). The secular Buddhists are arrogant atheist pieces of shit. If you want to debaucherize a religion like this, go make a secular Islam, and tell the Muslims how the Koran is all wrong and Mohammed was really an atheist who said there's no heaven and hell, and see how long you live.
You get the hell out of here with your nice, sensible comments. This is youtube, dammit.
@Gwyddion Flint Well I think it's right to say what you say - in a way! Because even though he taught about rebirth, he also taught about No-Self/-Soul...so, it's a bit more complicated than that. Because - what is reincarnated, or for that matter reborn - if there is no Self?
Of course I can not answer that question. But I can retell what Buddha himself said about the matter:
"As a flame passes from candle to candle, so in the same way you shed your physical body and "take up" another one."
The way I understand this, which might be all wrong (since Buddha always stressed practice before metaphysical speculation, and often refused to answer Q's that didn't help the strife towards Enlightenment), but the only way I can understand it is that our "Karmic account/inclinations" is what is reborn.
Only someone who has freed himself can guide others! The risk of you confusing something so simple with so many words and little practice: Knowledge helps, but there is a limit ..... walking the path leads to the destination: "The Way is the Obstacle" .... If you don't sit and meditate, don't neither calm nor wisdom is achieved. When I have questions, I ask them to an enlightened one: Ajahn Suchart Abjato / Q & A Dhamma in English
Where is the Statue of DB ? Never seen one ?
I see "true Buddhists" constantly criticizing an intellectual and / or academic approach to Dhamma. Which reminds me of this global anti-intellectualizing wave, but this, perhaps, is another matter.
I would only make a provocation on this subject.
Why is the sharing of theses in the form of words could not be a practice of total awareness? Why this practice can not be done compassionately and impersonally in an academic Community (a type of sangha maybe?)?
I speak from my own personal experience. I have a master's degree in philosophy, I never got carried away completely by language games. Study, reading and fraternal discussion have always been for me tools of total concentration and dissolution of the Self.
I would like to offer this provocation here.
John Peacock's lecture is intellectually very informative with more on philosophically eye opening and food for thoughts.
Thank you for identifying the speaker.
17:50 So Gautama was like a post-modern philosopher. Or a philosopher in general
I am not a scholar of Buddhism. I would like to hear what the Buddha actually said vs how the bureaucracy of formal Buddhism evolved it over time. I would also like to see how Buddhism accounts for the revelations of science over time.
bureaucracy?
I believe it is important for western people to experience the practise of dharma naturally from the standpoint of where they are as human beings. I believe if the lotus flower of the dharma is to flower in the west, it like any flower will naturally grow in what ever environment by adapting to the conditions.
"An appropriate statement" - he was clearly referring to the spontaneity that 'Buddhism' leads to. When you 'know', you do what needs to be done, you say what needs to be said.
Thank you for posting.
38:40
Sidenote:
In the Suttas, Gautama Buddha is rarely referred to as "Buddha".
Rather, he is most often referred to as
- Tathagata ("Thus gone") by himself
- Bhagavan ("Blessed one") by the narrator
Not bagavan its bagava. Bagavan means god in hindi bagava means buddha in pali
Buddha used to refer to himself as Tathagatha literally, one who walks on the truth, broadly all aspects of his being are truth alone, all actions, all speeches, all mental volitions, all findings and discoveries are based on truth, that is, he has experienced them himself.
On the other hand, all his disciples and lay followers would address him as Bhagva meaning one is totally free from all kinds of defilements in the form of craving, aversion and ignorance. That is his all actions are completely pure and wholesome.
Be happy always!!!
Have you read Charles Allen books on Buddhism and Indian history 🤔
I believe he summed it up when he said, "I am no expert in this field".
i'm glad you switch channel. It's beyond your level of comprehension! hahaha.
@matchboxmango Amazing.
Only someone who has freed himself can guide others! The risk of you confusing something so simple with so many words and little practice: Knowledge helps, but there is a limit ..... walking the path leads to the destination: "The Way is the Obstacle" .... If you don't sit and meditate, don't neither calm nor wisdom is achieved. When I have questions, I ask them to an enlightened one: Ajahn Suchart Abjato / Q & A Dhamma in English
@@LoydsVideo 😉
@@alexarouca4566 That doesn't mean that talks like this one, about Buddhism in the modern world can't be valuable in itself.
Very clarifying speech. It is important to understand that what we call Buddhism is a teaching of complete different understanding through eastern philosophy.Thank you for posting this video.
You simply cannot look at a religious tradition from a secular or atheistic perspective without distorting it, no matter how much arrogance Mr. Batchelor might bring to the task. Similarly, you cannot say the west misunderstand a tradition that you yourself so distort. Religions are living, evolving entities. Returning to the earliest practice is a great way to better understand the earliest practice, but it doesn't provide some sort of corrective to naturally occurring religious evolution. Buddhism has always been quite up front about the fact that it adapts to the new cultures into which it moves. That should makes claims of "misunderstanding" that are based in differences from the earliest understandings null and void.
An "appropriate statement" is a teaching that can lead to the awakening of a particular person or persons at a particular time and place. By the way, this particular discussion on "how the west misunderstands Buddhism" is a living example of how the west misunderstands Buddhism.
I've long struggled with Stephen Bachelors teaching but certainly agree with John Peacock about revising the translations of the Suttas and Sutras from Pali and Sanskrit. But the very essence of the Buddhas teaching is perhaps, live morally, seek non attachment, realise that all things pass and if his message is of use to you then use it, engage with it, if it is not then leave it.
Stephen Bachelor is just an atheist materialist nihilist Scientismist trying to destroy Buddhism by pretending to be some Buddhist guru.
No. In Buddhism, it is perfectly fine to criticize the clergy. As long as, his claims are proper, the clergy will have to listen. Almost all vinya law were created after the laypeople criticized the improper behaviors of Sangha. The buddha himself listened and adjusted the regulations accordingly.
LOL...Never read one off his books did you...
I honestly didn't much of this presentation. It's not something I would suggest to someone new to the path of Buddhism. And the thing about suffering in nirvana was just nuts.
Tommy Hunt
maybe not. I do not agree with a lot of Bachelors idea 's .His experiences where in the 70thies.A lot has changed over time.
But the fact is that the dhamma/dharma has become Buddhism. It has has become distorted by cultural baggage wherever the dharma was teached. . Especially Tibetan Buddhism. Where a lot of time is 'wasted' o how to fold the cloth in the right way. Learning the names of Bodhisattva etc,etc. (let's not start about the golden land buddhists,etc,etc )
The problem with ;eastern forms of Buddhism, is that a lot of people start very motivated (like myself once )But after a while start to notice more and more 'teachings' that have nothing to do with the Buddha or origina l dharma Sometimes not making any sense at all
Im Mahayana buddhist and in 39:31 to 40:40 John just hit the spot on what is Buddha in Mahayana, especially on the Lotus Sutra
Fascinating. Thanks so much for the upload!
Ranjit wijesinha 2023 . Buddha attained awakening by meditation under a bodhi tree. Using the breath (Anapanasatii)But JohnPeacock says there is no meditation in Buddha dhamma?
This video deserves more views.
I once read an interesting analogy that buddhism is like a boat to take you from one bank of the river to the other side. Once you arrive at the other side there is no need to carry the boat around with you.
Wow
This was one of the most informative talks I've heard on the subject/philosophy/way . Thank you for sharing!
Was viewing and very agreeable about the misunderstanding part of the clip title. None of the presenters seem to know the essence of the Buddha teaching. Therefore, most of the comments do not render to clear the misunderstanding.
You nailed it! These presenters were just talking bollocks!
Dear StPaulsLondon =)
My name is Raymond Lai. I am a member of the University of Sydney Buddhist Society called Unibodhi.
I would love to say, thank you, to you for taking the time and effort to both upload and share this video with the youtube family =).
I hope you have a lovely day, StPaulsLondon =)
Kind Regards
Raymond Lai (Member of the Buddhist Family)
U
.. should I be hearing ... Mara 24/7?
Even experiencing interfere with my meditations?
For years??
There is no mention of the Bhagavad Gita. I realize its a much earlier text but certainly relevant. Also worth mentioning is Hermann Hesse Siddhartha.
Indeed, this lecture proves how it misunderstands Buddhism
As a Westerner, if you can imagine what it would be like to approach Buddhism from an outside point of view.
In China you have the jolly fat Buddha that you often see as a statue in restaurants here in the US. Then you find the Buddha of India and Thailand, of Japan and Tibet. The Buddha of contemplation, the Buddha of repose, the Buddha of enlightened states of mind, the deitied Buddha.
These all represent Buddha and his teachings in their own ways within a system that is identified through culture, through history and how Buddhism evolved within their own traditions.
Most Buddhists will not argue so fundamentally about who's traditions or practices are 'better' as that's rather counter to the essence of Dharma teaching. But you will see an assumption, especially among lay practitioners and common people that their way is the correct one. This is religious belief despite the obvious contradictions.
To deny that Buddhism has become integrated with shamanic and other Eastern religions in many parts of the world is to blind yourself to the truth. Even in this thread you see the tendency to defend the tradition the commentor practices. Say to dismiss a Buddhism that incorporates karma, rebirth, Pure Lands, the cosmology of heavens and hells or otherwise defend them as the only true teaching. This is religion, this is how religion is both unifying and divisive.
You can see why so many try to distance themselves from this human grasping to certainty and belief.
What initially drew me to Buddhism was the pragmatism of the Buddha. It's a practice not a set of beliefs that one holds canonized. One doesn't need to be saved from hell or from fallen nature, one needs to behold their own blindness to the world (both inner and outer, although they mirror each other) from a place of misunderstanding to uncovering what causes perpetual dissatisfaction, anger, hatred and prejudice. It's leaving the question of belief where is lies and actually witness that belief from outside it. It's not a judgment, it's an attention.
Unfortunately, Buddhism in most of the world, not just in the West, still grasps onto the rigidity of beliefs, unwilling to set them aside for the practice of freeing yourself, of doing what Buddhism can do. I think I see that even more so in discussions like these.
Superb analysis. Really impressed.
It is easy to interpret these talks in a way that makes us believe that only the first turning of the wheel of dharma by the Buddha is authentic. But in fact the Buddha turned the wheel of the dharma three times to very different audiences: 1) Hinayana 2) Mahayana 3) Varjayana. These can also be seen as progressive stages on the path. Hinayana being the foundation on which Mahayana and Varjayana build upon. Practitioners of Mahayana and Varjayana are advised to always pay attention to the principles of Hinayana views or else they may stray from the path all together. Likewise, a practitioner of Varjayana is strongly advised to never loose sight of the altruistic view of Bodhichitta described within the Mahayana teachings.
Due to human nature some practitioners of Hinayana, and especially within the Theravada tradition, do not accept the other two levels of Mahayana and Varjayana cycles of teachings that the Buddha gave to the world. They strongly oppose the idea that these two additional levels where ever taught by the Buddha. To the extent that some confuse it with geographic appropriation even. Saying things like the only true Buddha dharma exists in Shri Lanka, and the like. They often have strong ideas about people calling themselves practitioners of the Buddha dharma living in Japan, China, Tibet and are calling them heretics, or worse.
However, practitioners of Mahayana and Varjayana see all three turnings of the wheel of the dharma as authentic and indispensable levels of teachings given by the Buddha on how to proceed on the path towards liberation and enlightenment.
I really hope that this “secular movement” is not turning into a partisanship for Hinayana and a disregard for the immense levels of wisdom in the other two cycles of teachings the Buddha gave the world! That would be a tremendous loss for the whole world. There’s no place for sectarianism within Buddha dharma. It goes against everything the Buddha stood for.
This is insightful . What buddhism is about really varies from person to person .
I did, when I was ordained as a novice monk. Meditation bring happiness that can’t be found from other sources, except inner of my soul. It comes from inside, a feeling of elated and happily all the time I meditate. But that state can occurred to any others religions believer if they are practice praying or/and try to look for their deepest reach of the heart through faith, incantation, god image , etc. So, it is not particularly strange thing, however the higher form of dharma can only be reach with understanding of 4 state of truth and 3 great dharma of universe dukha anidjatha and anattha which only limited to Buddhist. Actually I can sit in meditation posture for hours or day without a need for food and water still I do not feeling any suffered from bodily needs. Still mind and body have to coexist, unless one had gain enlightenment on first step or reach first step in jhana. It is a waste to die from ignoring body needs for breathing clothes food medicine and water.
sounds like you're attached to meditation. If not, give it up, completely, for 6 months. Tell me how you feel about that prospect
@@kylerasmussen1455 My enlightened teacher told me that “You still far from achieving first enlightenment for you did not see Dhukkha.” I can still this state for year or years, however would not attain a single enlightenment if I did not see how dhukka working on my body or mind. He also said if I died in this state, I would surely becomes one of Bhama(one of higher Buddhist aspect of divinity; a god, not a GOD in Hindu) So, I looking for a dhukka or changes in my mind now. And I could see how my mind working. Still I can’t get enlightenment. I ask my teacher about why? He smiled and said “Deep in your heart, you wanted to becomes one of the Lord; the Buddhas, you walking a path of a Bodai all this time. If you can throw away your deepest wish through life after life. This life is your final. I was shocked because “how did he knew it?”. Still, I told him “I wished to leave monk-hood and back to be an ordinary people who working and dying without stop reincarnated until I reached full state Bodai. Well, now just an ordinary man by now. Nothing unusual now no Divine Eyes ability, no foretelling ability, cannot walking through wall or warping from mountain top to a city. No jhana stated, regretted at first, now nothing regrettable. I see 3 states of truth more clearly as an ordinary man; who living his life in cycle towards death.
Words.
@@timothyblazer1749 Yes. Like all biblical and any religious doctrine.
@@nezarulalithmara7921 you're missing the point. But that's ok. Thou art God. :-)
Batchelor completely misses the boat when he says that karma is "just Indian thinking" of that time's view of reality. Karma is essential to the Buddha Dharma and without an articulation of karma in the context of Buddha Dharma, there is no articulation of Buddha Dharma. Karma does not come out of the Indian culture, karma comes out of the mind that has plumbed its own depths. That is why karma and rebirth were even found in Christianity until the Catholic church drove it out by the crusades against the Albigensians.
Charles Mendeley Yes, Buddha's great discovery was the view of karma on a psychologically scientific and empirical basis. Karma literally means action, and necessarily implies that actions have results, actions are the seeds that bear fruit. ("You reap what you sow" is karma in the Christian context.) The pre-Buddhist, or we could say pre-awakened, view of karma was about the actions of priests and others for purification rituals in order to remove the bad results of prior bad actions. However, the Buddha changed the view in two fundamental ways: first he said that ritual actions don't purify bad actions, only wholesome actions can create the karmic momentum to change the unwholesome momentum of past nefarious actions. That is why Buddha said "Hate never conquered hate, only loving compassion conquers hate." Second, Buddha discovered that there is no "self" or "soul" or "person" or "spiritual entity" that is reborn, only the karma consequences are reborn. Since there is no self or person being reborn, it follows that there is no birth in the first place, and that the birth of a person is an illusion of self-consciousness. The illusion is effective, but not literally true.
Gregory Wonderwheel Thank you for your comments. just what i wished to convey here. Stephen Batchelor is coming from purely intellect. Buddhism can be approached from many different angles, devotion and faith, intellect and mysticism thus benefitting people of different disposition and temperament.The path may be different but the destination is same.
Who has the right to edit the teachings of the Buddha! Certainly not stephen batchelor with a head full of concepts!
If he wants to do his own thing then he should take a few things, put them together, and call it batchelorism, and leave the true Dharma alone!
If anyone wants the authentic teachings, then move away from this guy!
+Gregory Wonderwheel Greg. The Buddha never declared kamma was "his" dhamma. Although he certainly taught about kamma, it was primarily a teaching for the laity. What was self-declared to be unique to the Buddha was his teaching of: "the kamma that ends kamma, namely, the noble eightfold path", which relies on what the Buddha declared as his unique & special teachings, namely, the 4NTs, anatta, emptiness, etc.
BarbarraBay Hi, I did not say that Buddha declared karma was "his" Dharma. I said karma is essential to Buddha Dharma, and I said that Batchelor erroneously claimed that karma is "just Indian thinking." The two together do not add up to a claim that karma is just Buddha Dharma. When I said karma does not "come out" of Indian culture but "comes out of the mind" I was speaking from the standpoint of mind, not of culture. To speak from the standpoint of culture, we can say that Buddha grew up in a culture that acknowledged karma from the perspective of the self (atman) and that Buddha's great discovery was the realization that karma actually functions without a self (anatman). So I think we are mostly on the same page with the exceptions that I see the 4 Noble Truths as the first and basic teaching of an outline that was deepened by the lifetime of teachings and that karma was a teaching for everyone of the 4 congregations of men and women, home leavers and home makers.
They both make some good points and have given me a lot to consider, some are quite valuable. I do however feel they do not understand the fabric of Indic or Indian thought, and I certainly do not agree with SB and his constant divorcing the teachings of the Buddha in Indian thought as purely circumstantial.
I never really seem to come a conclusion of what SB says, I feel the pair of them could endlessly go on finding intellectual variables while at the same time not offering anything concrete. But it was a good talk, and gives a few pointers for further consideration.
I think that, at this point, the problem with SB's position and secular buddhism in general is that it is more defined by what it denies than by what it proposes. I value his interpretation of rebirth, karma, etc. as cultural aspects of Buddha's teaching because that makes the Dharmma accesible to all cultures without the need to accept unverifiable metaphysical claims (which, in my opinion, can only cause cognitive dissonance to people that didn't born in societies where that is the de facto metaphysical "understanding" of life), but I agree that there is still something concrete lacking in his overall position.
@@patricion.3607 Stephen Batchelor shows no sign that he even understands the basics of dependent origination. If he did, he would not be using a scientific materialistic reading of Buddhism, because that's saying matter is the first cause which the Buddha denounces as Carvaka.
Brilliant and inspiring exchange
When they talk about 'the early texts,' what specific texts are they referring to and who wrote them?
The Pali cannon, which are considered to be the earliest (historically) texts spoken by the Buddha.
Thanks. Gonna check them out.
All Buddhist texts are written hundreds of years after the Buddha lived based on the oral traditions. The Buddha lived around the 5th or 6th century BCE. The Pali Canon was written down in stages around 200-100 BCE and the Sanskrit Canon began to be written down around 100 BCE and continued to be written till around 350 CE. The actual dates are debated.
Gregory Wonderwheel
The oldest surviving manuscript of a text composed in Sanskrit is an early Bhujimol script. The Devi Māhātmya on Palm-leaf, Bihar or Nepal, 11th century., can you show me the oldest Buddhism and Hindu texts that exists and has been examined as genuine , '' wiki , Since the 19th century, under the dominance of western colonialism and Indology, when the term "Hinduism" came into broad use,[43] Hinduism has re-asserted itself as a coherent and independent tradition.[44] '' , Indian literary production saw a late bloom in the 11th century before declining after 1100 CE. There are contemporary efforts towards revival,
Mal Fabian What is your question? The oldest printed book in the world is the Diamond Sutra in Chinese that is block printed on a scroll circa 868 C.E. and now housed at the British Museum. I don't know much about original hand written manuscripts that are still extant but what is the issue anyway? There is no real controversy about the general eras the Pali and Sanskrit texts were written down, though when any specific sutra was first written down is lost in the sands of time. What difference does it make? My point is that the Pali canon was written down before the Sanskrit canon was, but the Pali canon was still written down hundreds of years after the Buddha and so relied heavily on the oral tradition. Are you claiming otherwise?
Buddha was not understood fully even by his own listeners. How much more do we misunderstand the message?
Buddhist Monastries doesn't forced people to become a monk.
Children who are put into the monastic institutions can be disrobed on certain age or anyone is free to leave Monastry anytime. Taking bless from masters are just mere respect which comes out of disciple heart (just like student and teacher relationship). There is no coerce relationship between the two.
The thing all Buddhists all hold in common is the faith that it is possible to greatly or completely relieve suffering through the path.
...and also doesn't cling to the idea of relieving suffering. Equanimity is a stalwart of Buddhism.
Listen at speed 1.5 x and it's more tolerable. Otherwise you will go to sleep.
She is very correct, Buddhism isn’t just a therapeutic tool to help overcome issues. Engaging in “most of our issues” is one of the problems.
extinguished is a correct translation. nirvana literally means that, and thats the goal
ok so I have a pretty basic question...
If "meditation" is not part of early "Buddhism" then....why do so many "Buddhists" do it, and why are there so many paintings and sculptures of the Buddha sitting in meditation?
And what DO they call it, if not "meditation?" Is there a word for it at all? "Cultivation"? "Realization"?
Who says meditating is no part of early Buddhism? Merely what to expect of meditation could be questioned.
There are several kinds of meditations but primarily their purpose is to give us a firm understanding of the teachings and to give us direct experiences to further our progress towards awakening.
Tommy Hunt The Buddha teached the dharma/dhamma. = the noble truths, the .and the 8 folded path. The rest is ..added.
There are some great teachings added. Like the Dao , which became Zen etc.But the force in the dhamma /dharma is it's power to 'mix' with new cultures. why stop in Tibet or Japan? Why not use Science or Western philosophy (for instance) to make it more accessible for modern day humans?
Great to discover this. a complex topic navigated in an interesting, clear way. It reminded me of why I found Buddhism (ok forget the 'ism' , call it Dharma) so refreshing, when I came across it many years ago. Batchelor's four points during the Q&A's readily identify what is unique - taken in combination - about Buddhist tradition. His take on them are an inspiration.
Funny (and strange) how any, even remotely religious topic such as this attracts hot-heads to the comments threads ... hammering on about phonies, spiritual industries etc. It's worth observing that the word spiritual was not mentioned at all in either speaker's talks.
Thanks for uploading.
Philip James thank you for voicing reason, I have to admit a bit of pleasure at how much negative reactivity Stephen Batchelor brings out in people, haha
Interpretation or Perception about Buddhism by some are inherent in us
Buddhism is a part of common human heritage of wisdom by which man have succeeded in overcoming this world and in gaining immortality or deathless life.
Hes mistaken the finger that showing the moon instead the moon itself. At the end Buddha disregard all his teaching this is very crucial for whom following his teaching.
We hear "I" a lots in the talks from these self expressed eloquent gentlemen.......
One should Consider the Teachings of The Lord Buddha First then Decide what "School" of Teaching one finds appropriate for the Primary goal of all followers of Lord Buddha is to follow the path and seek enlightenment.
Whether the "Schools" of Theravada, basically in South Asia and South-east Asia, Or Mahāyāna, basically in East Asia, Vajrayāna, basically in Tibet, Bhutan, Mongolia and the Russian republic of Kalmykia.....
We Strongly suggest that if any wish to understand the Teachings of The Lord Buddha those seeking should study those Living it as with as Phra Ajahn Plien Panyapatipp with Meditation mind envelopment (Citta Bhavana) and other Very Noble Buddhist Monks actually Practising Buddhism.
Go to the True source of Buddhist Teachings.
Lastly as Buddhism came and developed out of then the tribal lands of Northern India it was well received into such countries as Thailand three hundred years after Hinduism came there and now is the predominant faith. Those that say they practice Buddhism do so with reverence and respect to those other Buddhist Cultures and traditions. The Thai Buddhist Monks and Novices one is well acquainted with are very Respectful, Honourable persons such as the Buddhist Lay people are.
As Siddhārtha Gautama clearly chose to do respect the culture he was born in, but as many were like him seeking a way to enlightenment, end suffering Per se. Buddha as the awaken one later said at his earlier searching as others were doing in brahmanism (Early Hindu Religion) He Tried to Cut his way through 'A welter of Views, A Jungle of Views' ....With Mindfulness and Dignity.
He also said on Brahmanism "One does not become a brahman by Birth, One becomes a brahman by living well.
One does not become an outcast by birth, One becomes an Outcast by living badly!" Meaning rather like a Person is not born a gentleman from birth but by acting like a gentleman..... similarly you are Not a Buddhist merely by name but by Living as a Buddhist, Practising Buddhism to the best of your ability with Mindfulness. Bliss.
True Mindfulness reading your long treatise and it is clear that you have never read Gotama’s actual words. He very clearly disrespected and mocked the religious movements of his time. He welcomed Dalits and women into his practice as equals in direct disregard to the Brahminic status quo of the period. In fact, whether he believed the supernatural or not, he rejected the dependency on them as a necessary explanation for anything. He was a rebel and refuted any attempt to deify him. I would encourage you to read from the Majjhima Nikāya. Best of journeys.
I didn't get the quotes on the experts.
Batchelor was a full ordained Tibetan monk who also studied zen at Korea and he continues to study Buddhism after the abdication of the robe,
Peacock is a Ph.D who lectures about Asian religions in universities.
Together they have decades of experience on the subject. I think it's enough to call them experts w/o quotes and to give them a minute.
I agree, that there is a great difference between "Buddhism" in any of his "interpretations (early indian one, theravada, mahayana, western interpretations etc.) and the "Dhamma" Budda taught. But who the fuck cares. Let those people misunderstand it, till they reach the moment to get another point of view. And who the hell ist Batchelor to think his interpretation is the right one. As he says it is a living force, everyone needs another acess to the understanding as every person has other potential. I started with Vipassana and a strict , a little bit dogmatic idea of the dhamma, as coming from catholicism. After yers of practice I changed my practice and understanding of the dhamma to Zen. Everyone has its own way. Practice more, discuss less ;)
This is why the debate over interpretations is itself misguided and the wrong approach: it'll just be a bunch of different sects borrowing legitimacy from the name of the Buddha and claiming this is what the Buddha actually taught.
Instead, one must actually explore the truth for themselves...looking at reality as it is.
I just realized I'm making the Zen argument here. But even Zen has become doctrinal and standardized.
The teaching of Buddha? A behaviour of one's own mind learning methods should be a brief answer. When a sexy woman or a handsome young man is approaching you, how do you feel? When someone drops a bag full of cash in front of you or you heard someone is talking bad about you. How do you feel?
How you are going to do with that feelings or emotions? How could you overcome the fluctuation of emotions in everyday life and not fall into depression or mental illness.
A simple answer from the teaching is to "let go" and try to build up "self awareness(Sati) " as an immune. That is an example of a teaching of Buddha.
The lecturer didn't seem to understand it.
Buddha would correct people on their need to categorize to the point of theorizing and drawing illusory constructions (though it does allow to write books, give lectures, and make a career out of it), like seeing a West here and and an East there.
In Abhidhamma
It teaches about
Mind
Mental factors
Aggregates
How many mind in details, how many mental factors in details, how many aggregates in details.
Humen aggregates are composed of terra, air, water and heat and cold.
Mind is pure and good. Mind stay inside heart mostly. Mind can visit.
Mental factors can manipulate mind.
Because of good mental factors, mind become good
Because of bad mental factors, mind become bad
If we arrive Nibbana, no one can destroy us.
We have no aggregate to decay and to be destroy by others.
We have no mind to be manipulated by mental factors.
Dharma means the Truth
Nibbana means Peace
Thank you for posting this video
I really like buddhism 🙏🙏🙏
Great discussion. Thank you
But there is a foundation which unites all other sects, the reason there is a variety of sects is that each emphasizes a particular portion of that doctrine which is the foundation of all Buddhist sects; that doctrine is called "The Four Noble Truths" the noble truth of suffering, the noble truth of the origin of suffering, the noble truth of the extinction of suffering, and the noble truth of the path that leads to the extinction of suffering.
Actually, this video is a wonderfull talk on how dharma teachings can be missunderstood in the west. However the tone of the dialoge is positive. Everything discussed is valid to how the dharma is evolving into a practical way of life in the west. Many of the issues discussed I have gradually become aware of in my practice and study. Still, I'm not sure why you define Mr Peacock as a Guardaian just to quote scripture?
As a whole both seems confused with buddhism on two main aspects.
1st relationship between conventional truth and ultimate truth teachings.
2nd different text of buddha's teachings for different mental disposition.
Each Buddhist sect emphasizes a different portion of the "Noble Truth of The Path Which Leads to The Extinction of Suffering" which is known as the 'Noble Eight Fold Path': 1. right understanding, 2. right mindedness, 3. right speech, 4. right action, 5. right living, 6. right effort, 7. right attentiveness, 8. right concentration. Zen or Chan Buddhism emphasize there style of meditation, for the purpose of deep realization. that would be centered on right mindedness, all other comes along with.
As a Buddhist by birth, applying the Buddhist way of life Buddhism for me is "live and let live and know one's limits". menlom
How can one born as a Buddhist ? any secret ?
Only someone who has freed himself can guide others! The risk of you confusing something so simple with so many words and little practice: Knowledge helps, but there is a limit ..... walking the path leads to the destination: "The Way is the Obstacle" .... If you don't sit and meditate, don't neither calm nor wisdom is achieved. When I have questions, I ask them to an enlightened one: Ajahn Suchart Abjato / Q & A Dhamma in English
Sometimes, I feel pity to the western people with their own ancient ideology and their research in the small lack of truth. It is correct to accept things with your own common senses and correct consideration but the may miss a golden opportunity to gain the existing knowledge of the Buddha teaching.
Right View(sammaditthi) means that basically,you know what you talk about ,what you think,and what you do. when you talk about ,you know what I talk about and it is good or bad ,right or wrong,and wholesome or unwholesome in any way,action,speech as well.
Taking ayahuasca is an appropriate response?
We can replace the word 'Buddhism' and use 'Buddha Dharma' for modern seekers of Truth (Dharma). See if experience as practitioner without belief (with beginners mind) resonates with the six attributes of Dharma.
Wonderfully put!
it's all about right and left brain thinking right? analytically thinking as apposed to intuitive thinking.
This lecture proves that even lecturers don’t know. That’s why to become speaker in Buddhism you need to practice and clear your doubt before speaking. There are only few gurus in Tibet
Comparing the Pali canon with Agama Sutra that can be found in the Chinese buddhist tripitaka will help to understand the teaching of the early days buddhism.
I like the right side man about the equanimity of buddhism.
As far as I can tell one of the most uncomplicated, "pragmatic" discussions and presentations of Buddhism I ever witnessed. I used to reply "I'm practising Zen, but I am not a Buddhist. I find it all too complicated and sometimes even nonsense. Sorry. Maybe I just don't understand it." These two gentlemen open a completely different perspective. This is the Buddhism I always thought I could accept. Especially remarkabele I find the reasoning about finding ethical solutions. They can indeed only be found per specific situation and only as an attempt to do justice to circumstances. A "religion" not knowing, accepting and teaching this always seemed lost to me. And now I hear this is the original teaching of the Buddha? Something that, at least, got lost in Christianity - if it was ever there. I feel so glad to hear that. Must read the books these two guys wrote. If it stands the test of scrutiny. 😀😀😀
Brother, Stephen Batchelor has his own bias. It's probably a Post Modernist Bias. Buddha's Original Teachings were certainly FUNDAMENTALLY NON DOGMATIC. Why ? Coz Buddha was a Philosopher and a Psychologist. He did NOT Start a Religion. He was like an Ancient Greek Philosopher. However, just like those Ancient Greeks, he did believe in a lot of Supernatural Stuff. We Secularists are supposed to keep those Supernatural Parts Aside. That's All. Anyway, if you want to Learn Buddha's Original Teachings, there is an AMAZING Channel on TH-cam. It is Probably the BEST Channel on Buddha's Original Teachings. There are more than 300 Videos on the Channel. It is called 'Doug's Dharma'. Please watch the videos. You will be exposed to a Plethora of Knowledge ! Start with the video 'Who was the Buddha ?', uploaded by Doug, on April 19, 2021. Happy Learning !!! 😄
@@DipayanPyne94 Thanks for this information. I know the channel and I follow it losely. Doug is a friendly, even kind, and seemingly extremely knowledgeable person. Lately I decided I should follow what I consider my most honest truth. I know I'm deluded. I just do not know when and how. I certainly will try to learn more about the Buddha and his teachings. But I can not imagine to ever give up my best understanding of the world for teachings I do not grasp... and only can believe.
You don't have to give up anything, brother. If you really want to Learn and Benefit from Buddha's Teachings, you can do so anytime. Look at me. I come from a Scientific Background and discovered Buddhism quite recently. Having studied it for quite some time now, I find it Impossible to Disagree with Buddha's Core Teachings. I don't think I'll ever become a Monk. But, I'll always try to be a better person, thanks to Buddha. I guess what we need to do is Read the Basics and then Practice them in our Lives. A Thorough Reading of the Pali Canon will make it clear to anyone that Buddha's Central Teachings are Completely Compatible with the 21st Century. In fact, they are Eternal and Universal. Anyway, do go through the Core Teachings in the Pali Canon. I am sure that you will learn a lot. But yeah, take all the time you need ! Finally, instead of buying any books right now, I think you should go through Doug's videos first. He himself recommends many books. So, you can watch his videos and read books at the same time. Anyway, take care ! Metta ! 😄
@@DipayanPyne94 I had to look up what "Metta" means only to find out that I completely agree with it. I do not relate to any teacher, even if I admire them very much, as you seem to do. If I try to become a better person it is because it makes my life more complete and meaningful. Any achievement is my own responsibility and only depends on my effort. I found in Zen Buddhism a helpful tool -- and even there I discovered so much too wildly intricate for my taste. But: I will take to heart your suggestion and listen more to Doug. Because really learning is entering unknown territory and I know I have to do it if I ever want to get any further. 😀 So thanks for your advice and, indeed, Metta! 😀
Pleased to hear that, brother ! You studied Zen ? Nice ! Zen is a part of Mahayana Buddhism. The Original Word for Zen is Jhana (Pali) or Dhyana (Sanskrit). Buddha taught 4 Jhanas. As Buddhism travelled from India to other parts of Asia, Jhana became Chan and then Chan became Zen. But yeah, it became more religious over time. The Least Religious is Early Buddhism, as already mentioned in the video above.
Anyway, to make it easy for you, here are some of the most important topics that Buddha taught :
01) Dependent Origination
02) 3 Marks of Existence
03) 4 Noble Truths
04) Noble Eightfold Path
05) 5 Precepts
06) 5 Aggregates
07) 4 Brahmaviharas
08) Golden Rule of Morality
09) 5 Hindrances
10) Non Attachment
Etc Etc Etc
The MOST Important in the Above List is Dependent Origination. It's Really the Foundation of Buddha's Dhamma (Teachings). In fact, there is a Famous Saying in one of the Early Suttas :
'He who sees the Dhamma sees Dependent Origination. He who sees Dependent Origination sees the Dhamma'
Also, there are many famous Parables/Similes that Buddha Taught :
1) The Parable of the Raft
2) The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow
3) The Parable of 2 Arrows
Etc Etc Etc
Anyway, there's SO MUCH ! 😂 It's the Work of a Lifetime, coz after all, Buddha taught for 40 years or so ...
this man was a buddhist monk, who fell in love with a nun he met in a zen monastery, then both left and became lay person. he doesn't believe in the religion that have Creator God, he has quite good training in buddhism but doesnt like it totally, is selective compatitble in most aspects of Sutra. if u find his teaching suitable for u, fine. just note that it is not authentic buddhism from all the main schools of buddhism. but its a free world. if u think he is superior to Guru Buddha Shakyamuni, then enjoy his teachings, bcos his is not Buddha Shakyamuni's buddhism anymore, but Stephen Batchelor Buddhism. for those who are not sure yet, it is best to follow the authentic ones such as HH Dalai Lama who is non sectarian and is well versed in all 4 schools of tibetan buddhism. cheers.
Buddhism or let's say teaching of Buddha, forget about all the teachings and just follow the FIVE PRECEPTS and tell me they are good or bad disciplines. Just 5 precepts alone can determine how fantastic ethics for the human beings..Abstain from killing, stealing, adultery,lying and intoxication..I like the topic...how West misunderstands Buddhism..
I you are looking at early "buddhist"-texts, then also the East is misunderstanding "Buddhism" or dhamma, if you will:)
How is Saint Paul's so confident in their own religion that they would play host to a Buddhist discourse like this. Fascinating!
To most westerners Buddhism is Zen and Zen means Buddhism. They aren't aware of the 3 major Buddhism traditions Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana and the many different schools like Pure Land, Nicheren, Huayen and so on.
read the lotus sutra, please?
SUTRA'S Scripture written by 'holy men'who claim to have heard the Buddha's wisdom through the intervention of 'higher beings. that does not mean they are not wise and beautiful...But, They have no-thing to do with the original Buddha.
@@spiritualanarchist8162 just because they werent written by buddha doesnt mean they arent buddhist, buddhism doesnt like gatekeeping
@@theparrot6516 Don't get me wrong. I'm no purist, I think Zen Buddhism (for example ) is a beautiful meeting between Taoism & Buddhism. However it'm just observing . It is claimed Sutras are the 'word of the Buddha ' given trough some inter medium. Just like Paul claimed he spoke for Jesus.
@@spiritualanarchist8162 eh lotus sutra and diamond sutra are still just as helpful as any other script even if that is so
@@theparrot6516 Do you even read my comment. I agree, but my observation is not less true.
First rate. Gets to the essence. Clears up misconceptions arising out of limitations of translation.
Bachelor really does have no clue for one thing dharma has a number of meanings depending on the context it is used in but there is always a clear context. Dharmas i Abhidarma can be described as ontological units. Dharma in regards to Buddha dharma means the teaching of Buddha.
His understanding of Zen and it historical context is awful. Zen does not deny or uphold any particular philosophical stance but its history clearly comes from the Mhadyamika.
Having hung out in Buddhist Centers for years does not make you an expert any more than living for years an insane asylum as a pateint makes you a psychiatrist.
This guy talked too much!
This is my understanding about some of the Buddha's teachings:
Don't believe in something just because tradition and culture tell you so.
Don't believe in something just because your parents tell you so.
Don't believe in something just because I (Buddha) tell you so.
Believe in a subject only after you examine it yourself, practice it yourself and finally find/experience it as truth, nothing but truth.
The truth: anitsa, doitka, anata (not sure about the spellings)
Anitsa: Transient, imparmenent nature of everything in this multiverse. The karma body (that of human and animals) and the physical? body (that of trees, rocks, etc.) are changing at every moment. Not only in the cells and subatomic nature but also on the surface if you look. The same applies to the mind. Now find the "I" in that changing body and mind. Let's examine the process of "seeing something" and call it "I see something". You want to look first and then look ahead, your mind focus, then the light and photons strike your retina and your optic nerve fires, that goes to some sensory association part of your brain and your mind says "I see". The whole process is very transient, happens in millisecond and then gone. Those photons are gone, the action potential in your optic nerve is gone. Your mind is now on this very sentence of this paragraph now. If you look, you can't find the "I" in this whole process.
Doitka: sickness, old age, death, not getting what I want, not being able to freeze my happiest moment (transient nature of time itself) is doitka.
Anata: Nothing is in your control. Cells in your body replicating and dying at this very moment, your previous feelings about your ex-wife (u can never recover that love back) nor very skin color nor your below avg height. I have some difficulty understanding this one because your karma (your thoughts and actions) control your body and mind. By meditation practice, you control your thoughts and actions. Anyway, I am not an expert.
So the basis is because of what you did, you experience either good/ bad through your six senses (eye, ear, nose=smell, taste, body sensation and mind=the instant of knowing what you see, hear, etc.). Then your conscious mind says "I like it, I want it, no, i don't like it, I'm mad, I'm jealous, etc. Those conscious thoughts not only contribute your actions but also affect your body and your surroundings right at that moment or later in a form of energy and hence called karma. In the whole picture, there is no "I" inside your body or mind. You cannot call your brain "I"(your soul), you cannot call your firing action potentials= your thought process or your conscious which is also transient, the "I". Deep in your cells, your atoms or thoughts, there's no "I" but just changing energy forms. These are falling dominos, billiard balls in colliding motions; connected but different. The same applies to reincarnation process.
This is how i understand Buddhism. If you don't believe it, u'll be smitten by lightening and sent to hell:)
You're a puppet and through your 6 senses, which are the strings, the existence moves you.
Become aware of the strings, realize you are a puppet on the strings and not something else as your elusive mind suggest to you all the time, and then go and be the puppet with the strings.
If you calm your mind, the delusions created by the mind will become calm too, you will see each moment clearly as it is.
Nixihuan-WoMa PeaceLover Ah, well. I guess we learned different forms of Buddhism. I had never heard nibanna being used outside the context of the supreme enlightenment in Theravada Buddhism.
Closest things I can relate to those nibanna levels are the jhana levels, which also bring up immense joy and peace as in your "rest areas," although the enlightenment is much more superior and harder to achieve. And since the Buddha did not create -- only discovered Dhamma, I don't think he created the rest area, he just discovered it along the way.
Lower jhana levels can be reached even without the guidance from the Buddha's teaching and I think many non-Buddha-follower ascetics from his time have reached it too. Then there are 4 Arupa Jhana levels too--definitely a long way from the lower Jhanas.
In Theravada, Arahatship and Buddhahood are equal in terms of being unbound, the difference is in the way they achieved it. I think a Samma Sambuddha is superior from an Arahat, because one found the way himself through countless rebirth and then took the trouble to teach it to the other.
I'm not going to rebut or argue. I'm just surprised that we learned somewhat different things. And since I'm a lay follower, not even an ardent meditator, I can't verify anything yet -- besides, its not like anyone can verify anything for another person. And it is not that I am immune to errors in understanding my own religion...
Nixihuan-WoMa PeaceLover
Sakyamuni Buddha is Gautama Buddha right? Is he in Saha? And the 10 stages are the 4 NT & 6 paramitas? Or + the Patticasamupada. Is Prayetka Buddha the same as Pacekka Buddha? I had always thought Pacekka Buddha found Dhamma on his own, not through the previous Buddha.
And, why would you say that Westerners stop at 4NT, 8NP & Paticcasamupada? I am an Asian, a Buddhist since birth, and I haven't really understood Paticcasamupada, let alone the myriads of other Buddhist concepts written in the suttas.
It is so, not only because the concepts are hard to understand, or because I haven't meditate much, but because were caught up in all sorts of rituals instead of discussing the Dharma and practicing meditation. Dharma classes are rare and most often exclusive.
Of course, it could be just me being not smart enough to understand it yet (causing misunderstandings which snowballs into plain not understanding -_-) or not rigorous enough in looking for it, but honestly, learning the whole Dharma is not easy task and requires lots and lots of time. Even the Buddha took so many rebirths as a Bodhisattva before his final birth.
Nixihuan-WoMa PeaceLover Many Westerners are into Zen and Tantra too, I think. Westerners who are interested in Theravada have their own reasons, maybe they are guided more by logic than faith. Besides, what do you mean by them not going forth in searching for truth. The True Dhamma has been completely taught by the Buddha, enough to reach the path of arahantship, which is also an unbinding. Why is that not truth enough?
If one wishes to go forth becoming a Bodhisattva, which is the objective of Mahayana, it would prolong his enlightment by many assankheya kappas, during which Sakyamuni's Dhamma would have vanished already. Not everyone wants to endure that, I suppose.
I haven't had the chance to read much of the Lotus Sutra, they have been somewhat...alien...to me. The Pali Suttas are a lot to digest already. I've come across them every now and then, I agree they read quite differently.
Dhamma classes is not quite that easy to find where I live. Or perhaps it's just a matter of my karma not permitting my circumstances right now. Life's a bumpy ride, add a bit misdeed and a past karma into it and it gets much more complicated... :) And that's one lifetime...
Yes, rituals can strengthen your faith. Meditation can strengthen concentration. Discussion can correct your misconceptions. Discourses may give you new insights. Everything serves its purpose when in balance. But when everything is just ritual, it's just sad.
Nixihuan-WoMa PeaceLover Well, different opinions are just different. I leave it there. I think an Arhat has completed the whole journey. They have gone beyond the clinging of any sort of bliss, whether rupa or arupa. So I think Arhathood is just as good unbinding as Buddhahood, just quicker and less original than being a Samma Sambuddha or a Pacceka Buddha. None of us can say otherwise to one another though, because none of us has experienced it ourselves. Even if anyone did, the testimony must be taken by faith.
Sakyamuni Buddha found the way to Buddhahood (in the current world cycle), including what you called the rest area, but I doubt he created it -- He named it, perhaps. Buddhas throughout ages have discovered it, so no one really created it. The Dhamma He taught is already perfect by the time he reached Parinibanna. What was His point of teaching the Dhamma if it didn't lead to unbinding? To keep his disciples in joy? But he did not teach his disciples to dwell in joy, did he? I think it is described in the suttas that Arhats are free from clinging to any bliss and joy.
Time is almost meaningless if we account for each of our birth in the past and in the future. Cycle after cycle -- time is infinite in that sense, and we are trapped in it. Because it is such an expanse of time, we cannot be sure that we will become exactly what we set out to be.
We may follow the Dhamma one lifetime, but in the next -- because of the randomness birth factors of most un-enlighened beings -- we may be born in a place/time where following Dhamma is not possible, or when Dhamma has been extinguished. And thus began a downward spiral into lesser births, down and up and down it goes -- prolonging Dukkha (unless you've reached stream entry/sotapanna). I think that is why the Buddha taught Dhamma and encourage his students, and anyone who has the potential, to always cultivate the mind and reach arhathood as soon as they can.
If one is steadfast and lucky enough, one day, one may meet one of the very rare Buddhas, and declare the vow of becoming a Bodhisattva in front of him, after which he must be ready to commit infinite selflessness for stretches of Assankheya kappas, in order to help one of the future "batches" of Dhamma-less mankind. That's an unbelievable amount of sacrifices, and time -- as seen in the Jataka stories.
I agree with you. Logically understanding written words about Dhamma, such as the Tilakkhana, 5 Niyamas, 4NTs, 8 NPs, Patticasamupada,12 nidannas, 7 Factors of enlightenment, the Abidhamma Pitaka, etc satisfies our curiosity, but realizing it completely is much harder, probably requires lots of both reading and meditation that a lifetime is not enough.
I won't call you Mara or anything. We are both students of the Buddha, unless the Buddha himself is here to reprimand either of us for our wrong views, I'd say it's pretty hard to say whether any or both of us is right or wrong.
Today's practices aren't in contradiction to Buddha's teachings as you suggest. A teacher is required to guide you towards the path, to teach you the path - the self-reliance only relates you yourself taking onus for walking on the path - no one can do that for you and in a sense it is empowering that you have the potential to accomplish this. But you do need someone to tell you what the path is - that's why a teacher is necessary.
correct. most thinking animals including me forget to see the how the mind gets entrenched in cycles of suffering moment to moment.
LMAO...How The West Misunderstands Buddhism should really be titled How The Batchelor Misunderstands Buddhism !
Exactly!
***** Hah...just about all the basic Buddhist tenets, he has what is simply call Wrong View that denies Karma & Rebirth & to try claim he's Buddhist with such an attitude is bull shit of the highest order whether people like it or not!!! Too little practice & too much thinking. He typifies a lot of the Western attitude to "philosophy", lots of thought but no practice !!!
PuggiTheGreat So have you studied the earliest Buddhist Pali cannons yourself then? Can you do better than Batchelor on elucidating the 4 main points of what the Buddha actually taught, that mark out the revolutionary nature of Buddhist thought as different from the thinking of his day eg Hinduism?
With your scornful attitude of arrogant derision towards Batchelor's tentative and thoughtful insights and understanding of what marked out Buddha's thinking from the thinking of his time, you merely typify the attitude of all the ignorant fools who run around judging and dismissing everyone else's views, while assuming you yourself know it all, full of pride, arrogance and bullshit yourself. Too much self-assured arrogant judgementalism and not enough practice yourself, methinks.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts" (Bertrand Russell) It's clear which of these two groups you belong to, and which one Batchelor does.
yogalinda LOOK...Hinduism did NOT exist at the time of Lord Buddha, you can at least do your history before "trying" to have a go at me. Karma for example was NOT accepted by most people back then and nor was the general idea of rebirth...If you don't want to accept Buddhist teachings then don't but do not be like Batchelor and try play silly games. YOU tell me, what is so great about his ideas, he says nothing original, nothing at all, he's an intellectual coward ...
You think Batchelor thoughtful LMFAO, go buy a real book ! Tell me, have you ever studied pratityasamutpada, err, no, or ya would not ask silly questions
YOU talk about me being full of pride & arrogant and implicitly call me a fool and fanatic, oh please, get a life ya silly feck ! He is wrong and even a cursory reading of Buddhist lit would tell you that...
And YES I have made a study of Buddhism, I've been a Buddhist all my life and am ex Monk of 10 years or so (is that good enough for you), I'm 54 not some kid...and please, oh please don't go into some stupid moral diatribe because I am not being appropriately polite to you in a Buddhist sense (pop goes the stereotype ho ho ho !)
I will tell you now he's a laughing stock in the Buddhist world, plus he's disingenuous but we have to put up with him barstadising Dharma because people like you listen to him and think he makes some kind of valid point and I tell you now he does not ! He says nothing original, is not even a good debater and if you knew your subject you would know that but most are just polite with this buffoon...Buddha once met someone like him during his life who wanted to take some kind of control and do you know what the Buddha said, he said he would rather spit vomit & blood, aye, even the Buddha used strong language when necessary....
This is my little rhetorical diatribe which I hope you like for I see no advantage in talking Buddhist tenets with you if you mention none, do you know what they are, tell ya wot, go google it hahaa ! Or go do some yoga.
God save us all from new age intellectual yoga type dweeds !!!! If it was not for uneducated peeps like yourself I would not even have to reply. Oh oh, he's also a laughing stock in the academic world as well....
NOW, go do some OMs, eat some legumes, or go talk to your angel, but don't talk about things ya know nothing about, you're out of ya depth, or you can prove me wrong by saying something clever instead of a rather lame ad hominem (mine if much better ROFL).
Your name "yogalinda" says it all & screams NEEEEW AGE ! Stay wi ya yoga and do some more Oms, or Krishnas, or commune with your angel or whatever it is that people like you do, or go read patanjali & try pretend he didn't nick stuff from Buddhadharma...Ha !
...
Of course Hinduism existed at the time of Buddha - it's the world's oldest religion! Buddha's lifetime coincided exactly with the flourishing of Vedic Brahmins and if you study the Vedanta you can see a lot of similarities between Buddha's thought and the Vedanta.
I'm not interested in a one-upmanship game about who knows more about anything. One thing is clear about you - that despite your supposed years of study and practice of supposed "Buddhism" - in terms of your levels of self-awareness and Right Speech you clearly have learnt very little indeed.
Your assumption about my name's implications are just that - your assumption. I used to teach yoga and it was a catchy name for people to remember my website, that's all.
Now go and manifest yourself as Vajrayogini or whomever and keep on bolstering your pride at how much better than the likes of Stephen Batchelor you are. He is obviously a laughing stock amongst you and your gang of supposed "Buddhists" (ha!), but he is most defintely not a laughing stock in the entire Buddhist world. If anyone is giving Buddhism a bad name it is people like you, not Batchelor, so full of yourself with your arrogant dismissive pride. If by practising and studying Buddhism for 30 years plus I'll end up like you, I certainly won't bother.
The secular Buddhists don't want you to see this:
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).
Secular Buddhists are skeptical of rebirth and karma and even nirvana. Could they be wrong? Yes.
on the other hand, the other side could be wrong on their overall presentation of the ideas. of course this just comes down to how we interpret existence, there are many ways rebirth and karma can be both literal and metaphorical, rebirth could be a beautiful metaphor for many things, such as, i am here, and you are here, and we are the progeny of the cultivation of life on earth over time. and it flows. life flows life every cycle in the world, we work within its laws and move within it at all times to achieve our needs and goals... while also being nothing but a manifestation of the universe to live and die in samsara. i dont know about the fact about certain conscious beings being directly tied and knowing to be the same thing, like a person who claims to have directly been another organism under a different name or skinb ut the same consciousness. what if the same consciousness simply is being misunderstood, maybe it is just a metaphor. maybe this "higher consciousness", if you can call it that, is simply akin to tao. i know nirvana can exist as escaping suffering while being a part of the universes game. i dont see why believing in being reincarnated through multiple lives to finally achieve nirvana makes any sense. there is a here and now and we are all experiencing it and we all have the possibility of buddhahood, this is what the buddha said!
We'll never know what the Buddha had in mind or whether his words were even recorded accurately. That's not what matters. What matters is what's true, and the writings about what the Buddha may or may not have said, are nonetheless incredibly important because they, more clearly than many others before them, have pointed to the now-scientifically validated theory of no-self, which makes all concerns about "what happens when I die" completely moot. It's irrational to fear "your own" death any more than you fear a complete stranger's death, because the person with your DNA pattern tomorrow, and the person with your DNA pattern who will die in the future, will not be "you", will not be experienced by you, any more than any other person is experienced as you. They'll simply have some of the same memories, and might remember these ponderings and falsely identify with you just as you falsely identify with them. But they won't be you. You'll already be dead. Every moment of every day, the instant of consciousness that there was a moment before, is dead. When the pattern of thoughts that is your mind realises that, and ceases to conflate different moments of consciousness under a singular identity, then in at least one highly important sense, the endless "cycle of rebirth" that causes suffering will stop, as there's no more illusion that the same person is waking up each morning. To either cling to, or fear, the possibility of a literal rebirth of this life's mind-pattern, are both nonsensical if there is no more illusory belief that you, as any given conscious moment, are going to be the one experiencing it. If it ends, no literal rebirth, you won't be the one experiencing its loss. If it continues, you still won't be the one experiencing each new moment of consciousness associated with it, any more than you'll be the one experiencing old age.
the doctrine of rebirth isn't a metaphor. I don't understand why westerners have so much trouble with it that they can't even accept that the doctrine is what it is, rather then just not believing in it
optifog "the person with your DNA pattern tomorrow, and the person with your DNA pattern who will die in the future, will not be "you", will not be experienced by you, any more than any other person is experienced as you."
The person I will be in the future will certainly be experienced by me more then other people are experienced by me. I don't experience any other person except the person I am in the present, the person I was in the past and the person I will be in the future.
***** There's absolutely no difference, you who are conceptualising this sentence experience being someone else *exactly* the same amount as you experience being *you* in the future - not at all. The people you think of as "you" (conscious instants) generated by the same brain, who will be conscious instants *of the memory laid down of this moment*, will *falsely identify* with you, the conscious instant of this moment. It's just like someone getting engrossed in a film recording of an event they were *Not* there to experience, watching it later and genuinely believing that they were the person in the recording, just because it's so engrossing and they have no other memories of being outside of this hypothetical cinema, the images (memories) displayed are all they know, and they don't know it's a cinema, so they think they're "reliving" something *they* lived, when really they're watching a recording of something someone *completely* separate, but simply generated by the same machine, lived.