Chris Lattner already did! Search for "Mojo🔥: a deep dive on ownership with Chris Lattner".

I don t desire to become a dog in afterlife

You are not called upon to abandon all desires. This is a huge misunderstanding. You are called upon to desire the wise, the good, and the beneficial. Once you have acquired these, there can be no more question of desire. One only desires those things which one does not possess. Your desire is therefore extinguished upon acquisition. When you desire that which is wise, there can be no more craving because the desired object is achieved.

I am rather shocked that you were failed by TWO schools of Buddhism in ONE lifetime. Under whom did you study, and for how many years? “New Age” is not a school of Buddhism, by the way.

@wordscapes5690 I read books and went to over 100 retreats in Buddhist monasteries. I also read about 600 books ; I was Buddhist for 23 years. I was New Age for 4 years. At the end of my Buddhist experience I was thinking of becoming a Buddhist Nun. Jesus saved my life I have love and assured peace in Christ. I wish you peace. God bless you. Manashantii The Christian

@@ManashantiiTheChristian I am sorry, but “going to retreats” does not make you a Buddhist. Did you study any Pali? Which Theravada school? Did you take your five or eight precepts? What lineage? And did you abandon the Theravada for the Mahayana or vice versa? And why? You sound very confused. And going on retreats? Is this a holiday? Meditation is what you do AFTER you have mastered your precepts. It is not something that is engaged in at the beginning. This sounds like western woo, not Buddhism. I am delighted your Jesus rescued you from it. And I am doubly delighted you did not “become a nun”. And again “New Age” is not Buddhism. It sounds like a western thing like Scientology or Mormonism. Moreover, you say you were Christian for 19 years, then, 26 years. Then you say you were “New Age” for four years. Then you say you were Buddhist for 23 years. It is all very vague and confusing. This means you must either be extremely old, or that you began your Buddhist journey when you were a child. Forgive me, but I find your story very hard to believe. Look to your SECOND precept. You should have mastered it. Bhante the Buddhist.

I read the Tripitaka in English. And I meditated after reading. I also was taught by monks in different communities. I shouldn't have to prove to you my experience. You have a right to your opinion. God bless you. Manashantii The Christian

@@ManashantiiTheChristian Sorry, I just do not believe you, and I regard your flippancy regarding the ancient faith tradition of my country to be disturbing. My religion is not a “retreat”, nor is it a “New Age” psychological fix for bored westerners. You talk about changing Buddhist traditions as if it were underwear that didn’t quite fit. I find you deeply offensive, deeply dishonest, and deeply mistaken. PS, the Tipitaka is one amongst THOUSANDS of texts. And if you studied Zen, even MORE. I find it odd that after two decades, this is all you read, and that only in English… after so long. You would have been a terrible bhikkhuni. Thank you for returning to your religion. You clearly belong there. Namo Buddhaya.

It could be the Jesuit priest Henri de Lubac. But I get no hit for Cludio Mysterios or something similar. Please let me know if you find it!

@@IvanGarcia-cx5jm thanks, it's him I think and Cludi Castillo Mysterios is probably some term he used, I didn't find it. Cludi Castillo mysterios means sth like the mysteries of closed castle from what I checked

define help and good. what if the other person doesn't want the help you are offering. are you still good? what if even from the mere moment of expressing an act of unsolicited help causes the other person distress?

The Buddha never taught that desire was bad. This is a misunderstanding of the 4 noble truths. Westerners are forever misinterpreting it. Desire for that which is virtuous and good is encouraged. Desire for that which is destructive is considered a hindrance to your progress. That is why the beginning of the practice - before you even pick up a single sutta - is to take the 5 precepts. Nowhere is it taught that ALL desires are to be abandoned.

⁠@@zenmodi2614objective reality and moral truths exist. A distress towards those things must be eliminated. Such as a h*roin addict hearing the truth that he needs to stop taking it

@@wordscapes5690okay what are good desires and how can Buddha substantiate them? He was just a guy who admitted himself that he isn’t an authority on salvation. If he is grasping at moral truths and righteousness it means that he grasping at a source of that moral truth. Meaning that even with this view Buddhism will inherently presuppose God unless good desire is subjective

@@sweetnerevar7030 Gods, THE God, whatever gods are relevant to you (I am not sure which) may very well exist. They may even provide you with this salvation you seek if you abide by the god’s principles, rules, precepts or dogmas. However, the Buddha did not offer you salvation. He did not offer you this “eternal life” you so hanker for. He states that eternal life is already your natural state. You cannot die. The body can die, the self (or brain construct) of the body can die, sure. You are by nature immortal. Buddhism deals with what you DO with your immortality. That is all. If you wish to believe in your particular god, go right ahead. If you do not, equally fine. But no god can absolve you from the repercussions of your actions. Responsibility cannot be shirked. You can be forgiven, sure, but responsibility? No. The consequences of your actions are yours alone to face. That is why, even when you call to your particular god, the invariable response is silence. Gods can provide solace, forgiveness, comfort… but they cannot shoulder your kamma. That is the opposite of justice. Absolution does not mean freedom from responsibility. Also, there is no point to the question “Who designed the moral code?” It is the way existence is. We call it Dhamma, you call it God’s Law. We just choose not to select a god from the VAST array on which we may blame Dhamma. You do. And that is fine. For us it is perfectly fine to say: “Dhamma is.” It is good enough for us that the Good exists. Finally, how do I know Buddhism to be a very true and virtuous path that is far superior to other paths?: you can evaluate the veracity of a doctrine by the way its clerics, its adherents, and its lay people treat each other and how they behave toward others, and the “other” in society, that is, the most hated and marginalized. You cannot judge a religion purely by its scriptures (they will always be flawed, contradictory, and filled with anachronisms). I shall leave it there.

Unfortunately, he got the ethical side wrong. The metaphysical? Do you mean rebirth?

My friend, from this Bishop’s mouth I could not recognize my own religion.

How do you know this Satan uses seals?

I did not recognize my own religion. And those bits I did recognize were merely titles or single words. The explanations that followed them… good heavens! It was like looking at the Buddha through wax paper: you could see a vague silhouette that could be bat… or a space rocket. Most confused.

Less attachment to worldly things can open up us better to the divine. That is probably something both Christians and Buddhists could agree.

He totally misunderstands the 4 noble truths. The Buddha does not ask you to abandon desire. You are called upon to desire that which is good and to abandon that which is destructive to the path. You are to abandon craving for that which causes clinging to this world. The very first thing to start practicing is the 5 precepts, which is an expression of your desire to be virtuous. They re like your western Ten Commandments, but only 5: no stealing, no lying, no substance abuse, no killing, no sexual misconduct. You have to DESIRE to abandon these. So the good Bishop TOTALLY misconstrues the idea of what should and should not be abandoned regarding desire.

@@wordscapes5690 That's a lot of desires wrapped up in your comment. Peace

@@InfoArtistJK Spreading Dhamma is a GOOD desire. It must not be abandoned. Did you read my previous comment?

The original Christians were Catholic. The Catholic mass, in essence, was there from the start. The first Christian split was in the 11th century; west Catholics, and east Orthodox. I attended an Orthodox mass a few years ago, and it is almost like attending a Catholic mass, of course over the years differences accumulate, but the essence is the same. For me Catholics and Christians are the same thing. Orthodox are Christians as well. Then in the 16 century there was an additional Christian split, and the splits from there became exponential. But thanks God the Catholic church remains.

@@IvanGarcia-cx5jm you're wrong. catholics started in babylon, with nimrod/semiramis/tammuz.. and has nothing to do with Jesus. the catholics took the name of Jesus and overlapped it into their pagan worship and rituals. look it up.

@@joshmilligan7682 The Catholic mass consists of initial prayer, repenting of sins, reading the old testament, psalms, new testament, and finally always the Gospels. Then the creed, then prayers for intentions, then the consecration of the Eucharist, with the exact words of Jesus as in the 4 Gospels, then more prayers, and finally communion as the Gospel, and Paul mentions in his letters. Then the final blessing. That is how all masses are, and they are at the center of the Catholic Christian faith since before the Roman empire favored the Christians. Which of these parts is pagan?

@@IvanGarcia-cx5jm Mass is not biblical, nor is lent. it's babylonian rituals. LOOK IT UP. if you're saying anything other than that, you have not looked it up, and you're wrong.

@@joshmilligan7682 Can you please give me the reference? Which parts of the mass are pagan or Babylonian? If it is so certain that it is pagan it should be easy to point out which parts of the mass are pagan. You can find most of the components of the mass in the new testament and Bible. And at the center is the last supper words of Jesus. John 6, Paul's letters. What stronger references are than those? After the Roman empire adoption of Christianity the mass took a more formal and uniform approach, but I don't see anything of pagan nature in it. If not, can you please point which part of the mass is pagan?

As a Theravada Buddhist, I can agree with u!

This seems to have offended you

@@Shiggy_ not at all

@@dreyri2736 uh huh

@@Shiggy_ do you have a point to make or do you just like typing interjections?

@@dreyri2736 I made my point

I admire and love the dear Bishop, but I want to highlight the part of his response that he did not elaborate on. I accept your definition of Tanha and contrast that with how Jesus defines love. Jesus teaches us that love is defined as the intense attachment for the benefit of our friends over ourselves. The intensity so high, that one would be able to lay down their very own life, against a 'human' sense for self-preservation. John 15:12-13 12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 *Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.*

@@alisterrebelo9013In Buddhism, there is no “self”. So, for whom are you laying down “your” life, and who is doing the laying down? In Buddhism all life is precious, including “yours”. And let us not forget that the same man who called laying down your life to be a great good, also said that we should hate our own lives, and hate family, father, mother, and children. In other words, lay down your life first for god and NOT your friends. These kinds of contradictions are what make your scriptures, for me, untenable.