Great respect to Ven.Bhikkhu Bodhi; one among the "Living Fountains' of Buddhism.

Wonderful series. Thanks for uploading these videos🙏🙏🙏

Clarifying talk on becoming or rebirth as well as karma. Thank you, bhikkhu bodhi.

Thank you so much Venerable and all the team who did this course possible and avaible 🙏🙏🙏

He is the great light carrier...in the dark world

Thank You for a very clear explanation of the reincarnation-rebirth difference from Hindu and Buddha's teachings. :-)

I think Carl Jung's opinions and writings on archetypal natures can give more insight to the idea of rebirth. Thank you for this knowledge 🙏🏽

Highly enjoying this series. Thank you.

Love brother that is what the Buddha shares 💖💖💖

Thanks a lot for lecture! Very clear❤ Metaphors are excellent 🙏🏻

Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu 🙏🙏🙏

Thanks

Very clear and helpful

MERCI

Looking back on the major decisions in my life and wondering what my intentions were... a mixture of wholesome and not? Am I being too nice to myself in thinking the intentions were wholesome? Am I being to hard on myself in thinking the intentions were not wholesome?

If the number of streams of consciousness is indeed infinite, the Bodhisattva's striving to liberate ALL beings would be futile...?

Sadhu sadhu sadhu

Main points: Kamma and Rebirth

🙏NAM MÔ A DI ĐÀ PHẬT

What happened to the second class in the series? It was on July 29th?

@ravindraganage7562

5 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/f5eKtbRtibecfKQ.html check out this

I really enjoy these Buddhist teachings. They are by far the easiest to understand I have ever encountered. I will say that the teacher has a common but limited understanding of the gospel.

@adamdreisler7365

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed that these are some of the best buddhist teachings, butJust because the teacher can explain the teachings in a clear and clear meaning , that does not mean hid understanding is limited… on the contrary… ✨🙏✨

@chessmaster2649

2 жыл бұрын

@@adamdreisler7365 independent of his insightful views on buddhism his views on Christianity are in error. The scriptures teache teaches "that by works no man is saved."

I am sorry but I do not see significant differences between stream of consciousness and soul, just different angles of observation, just another words. Am I wrong? Thank you, though.

If there is nothing solid or permanent that constitutes MY consciousness but my consciousness is nothing but a stream of moments of consciousness and if my persona is just a bunch of 5 aggregates which are themselves insubstantial and I have no real self...then the stream of moments of consciousness that 'inhabited' my body and moves on to 'take possession' of another body when my body dies, will continue to be only a concatenation of moments of consciousness. What gives it ontinuity? Can it be said to be individual? How can it be said to carry any memories from one existence to another? No continuity, no memories, no individuality. SURELY! And no karma either. Thus have I spoken.

@nadeekadilshan4226

4 жыл бұрын

Okay, seems lots of questions,,well I think I can help about leaving one’s body here and creating another existence somewhere else from using a simile, Some might understand things with similes, think about you are in your home and suddenly came to your consciousness(in this case Mind) that you want to go for your friend’s house, then you ‘physically’ go to your friend’s house( using physical consciousness)because you are able to use your physical body as the way to reach your desire, now just think about the moment that you had the consciousness to go for your friend’s house yet you were suddenly died at the very moment, so the consciousness which were to be use the bodily consciousness switch to the consciousness where that can survive(in a dying moment the last consciousness is Mind) and next moment you are making yourself an existence according to your last thought because you already jumped off to an existence regarding your last thought, if we carefully think about it we can see this gap between old existence and new existence,the gap, that jump, that spark is called craving,thirsting to make selfness,ego.. (Thanha)(this is an extremely fast incident). (There are lots of Dhamma to talk even in this very particular discussion though I just want you to know Dhamma has every support to support Dhamma itself, we just have to keep our faith on Dhamma and study and practice Dhamma, and eventually Dhamma will reveal Dhamma itself by little by little to us)

@lawrencestpeter253

4 жыл бұрын

Your kamma moves with your consciousess, sort of a backpack.

@JanakaAbeyratne

4 жыл бұрын

I will give you one simile to understand rebirth..when you cook raw rice the characteristics of the raw rice gets changed..why because it gets changed with the use of water and heat now it Is not the same thing as raw rice but not something very new(cause it has a past)they are connected yet two different characteristics appier...with karma the mind gets formed accordingly and the body will become suitable for that mind to be born..

why does he dress like Socrates?

@christophertito8118

4 жыл бұрын

The robes of Buddhist monks are like that. They've been wearing robes like that for 2500 years, while the types of clothing worn by the rest of the world change every century. Even in America, you can tell that people from the 60's dress differently from the 80's.

@lawrencestpeter253

4 жыл бұрын

Those are monks robes.

@fraternitas5117

Жыл бұрын

because Socrates is dope

Here: you have no self but you can be reborn

The distinction between Hindu and Buddhist teachings on the rebirth isn't altogether accurate. Atman is the pure consciousness, the Self, not an individual soul. But again, as Bhikkhu Bodhi himself admits, his knowledge on Hindu thought is limited. Moreover, his view of Christian doctrine is highly superficial.

@charlesbivens6757

2 жыл бұрын

This is neither a talk on Hinduism nor Christianity. Due to time constraints and the choice of topic, one should realize that discussion of anything other than Buddhism need be superficial, or run the risk of digression. In addition, it is more accurate to speak of "Christianities" plural, rather than singular, as there is no one, single agreed-upon view of any Christian dogma. The movement is too diverse. Hence scholarship speaks of it in the plural. The same can be said of Hinduism. One would need to attend lectures on Hindusim or Christianity to go into any depth of those belief systems. Your points are invalid.

@user-gg4ii3os7k

2 жыл бұрын

@@charlesbivens6757 I will go no further into the discussion about my points, for I don't see them challenged. What does concern me is the notion that one can go into depth of Christianity by attending lectures or paying attention to what scholars have to say. The same can be said of Hinduism. On the account of "Christianites", I have nothing sound to say. Except, maybe, to urge the uploader to, in accord with your argument, change the title of the video to "A Short Introduction to Buddhisms" or "A Short Introduction to that and that kind of Buddhism". For the movement is too diverse.

@charlesbivens6757

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-gg4ii3os7k Oh I didn't go into depth by paying attention to scholars "only," although scholarship is a vital part of any belief system. You would have nothing to comment on, in error, if it weren't for Hindu, Buddhist and Christian scholarship. As a once ordained pastor and theologian in Christianity, having lived as lay, ordained, and a scholar teaching in Christian universities for the past 35 years, I feel I am adequate to point out that your assessment of his view of Christian doctrine as "superficial" is, in fact, superficial and inadequate in and of itself. Must be difficult carrying the burden of having the last word on 3 world religions and not considering whether what you have said maybe in error. Hope the air in your echo chamber remains fresh. You are your own best audience. Have a good day in there. Namaste.

@user-gg4ii3os7k

2 жыл бұрын

@@charlesbivens6757 I would presume that you are a theologian in Christianities. That without scholarship one would have nothing to comment on strikes me as deeply unchristian (foreign to Buddhist and Hindu practise and thought as well). I must agree. You did only point out my superficial arguments but not really challenged them.

@charlesbivens6757

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-gg4ii3os7k You do not have to presume, I stated it explicitly in my message. I was in the Christian world for 35 years. You stated initially that "Moreover, his view of Christian doctrine is highly superficial" After having listened to his view of Christian doctrine, not only was it accurate but it was of significant depth to sufficiently point out the distinction between Christianity and Buddhism in relation to the topic. Your dismissive "Moreover, his view of Christian doctrine is highly superficial" took a position of an intellectual and spiritual superiority point: That Hindusim and Christianity hold distinctive views from Buddhism. You tool up minor points and attempted to make major issues, presumably because they bothered you. And one can also only presume, meant to diminish the speaker as having "less than" you, the commenter. Less knowledge. Less spirituality. Less depth etc. And I certainly take issue with thinking that having a high regard for scholarship and that without scholars there would be nothing to comment on, as somehow the antithesis of each of these movements. Scholarship studies, interprets and communicates the tenants of the belief system, among other things. There would be no canons, no traditions, and no lineages if scholars had not passed down the essence of each system. Stating that my as being... deeply unchristian, is a personal opinion. Not a fact, based on any type of evidence. The bottom line is you attempted, in your initial comment, to defame the speaker and present yourself as being in a position of spiritual or intellectual superiority over him. Your point was that his view of Christian doctrine was highly superficial. As someone who was considered an authority in Global Christianity, and Christianities (plural) I challenged that. You are in error. His view is more than adequate with enough depth to point out the distinction which was all that was necessary. Hence, either you wanted to position yourself as superior to the speaker or you lack any real depth concerning Christian doctrine, or both. You have majored in the minors, insulting the teacher in the process. Take it as you will. What you accused the speaker of, you are in reality...guilty of yourself. I am assuming, due to your comments, that you are a novice but perhaps a practitioner of one or some of these systems. Your evasiveness makes it impossible to have a beneficial conversation so I will leave you with the belief that you are right and I am wrong, along with the speaker. An echo-chamber of your own creation. Good day.