Secular Buddhism | Ajahn Brahmali | 07-02-2014

[@Maggasekha]

I can see a lot of people seeing Bhante say "because the buddha said so" and really going off on that. It's funny how the more I practice the more of what the Buddha said is confirmed through my own experience. I cannot say that I "believe" in rebirth, although I am heavily inclined to it I remain agnostic for the most part.. however I've started to develop a faith and confidence in the buddha that says.. well he's been right so far... what if? I have always been very rational and scientific minded.. however I have also always kept an open mind. Keeping that open mind and questioning is what the scientific method is all about, same with the dhamma practice method.

[@crookedhorizon]

Thank you for this talk, May all beings be free from suffering...

[@vanityandpride82]

Great talk as usual by Ajan Brahmali! Thanks a lot!

[@chebo73barney]

Ajahn Brahmali is a great teacher.

[@lisaonthemargins]

Myself being a "secularist with a bit of inspiration from Buddhism" I honestly must agree with his concluding summary.

[@takimir1]

Thank you so much Bhante for your true and wise words. So true, so important matter in this dark times. We must defend the genuine Dhamma even if it's not 'trendy' 'hot' 'fashionable', etc. Dhamma is timeless and it must be practiced and realized as the Buddha instructed. The secular Dhamma is basically 'new-age-consumerism' disguised as 'Dhamma'. That is the path going to no where. Sticking to the genuine teaching and avoiding fake/sham teaching is utterly important. The secular Dhamma has nothing to do with the Buddha. They are disrespecting the Buddha with their marketing scam.

[@TheGreeny38]

Thank you. I love these talks. Uplifting. Loving kindness to you all.

[@sww770]

This was a very interesting talk on a very interesting subject. I do feel that the presenter is trying to ‘have it both ways’, in the sense that he claims that Buddhism is not a religion because it does not impose beliefs on individuals and lets them use their own reason in their approaches to life, but on the other hand saying that belief in rebirth is an essential part of being a Buddhist, and that we should believe in rebirth because the Buddha said it happens. If a defining feature of a Buddhist is that he/she believes in rebirth, then I would say Buddhism is a religion, as it requires belief in a supernatural phenomenon for which we don’t have scientifically-validated evidence. If we decide to believe in rebirth based on the Buddha’s teaching that isn’t really any different from the faith that’s required in other religions. This is exactly the question that was asked at the end, and to me the answer there was very unsatisfactory. He basically just repeats that Buddhists are encouraged to use their own reason to decide what to believe rather than unquestioningly following the teachings of a wise person, but then says that in the end the Buddha tells us that rebirth does happen and we should consider it because the Buddha is a wise person. The speaker then says that to him this not a contradiction!!!! To me this is an obvious contradiction!!!!!

[@TravisCBarker]

Agreed. Reasoning with a buddhist surfaces many insights regarding the religion.

[@schroonsjozef]

"We should not simply believe everything the Buddha said without proof of its truthfulness through our own direct experience." You know who said this? THE FREAKIN' BUDDHA HIMSELF!! xD Buddhism is much more scientific than people make it out to be. With an open mind to all teachings, YOU have to figure it out, only you.

[@ekayanaify]

Thank you Ajahn. Very helpful.

[@brittanyalonge]

I appreciate this message. The Buddha would approve of anything that made people better. Secular Buddhism to me sets the foundation for anyone that may want to get deeper into Buddhism because it breaks things down where they are easy to understand.

[@tobiasheathbrown2627]

This is a very interesting lecture. It suggests to me that some of the founding, those who rejected Christianity and embraced reason (via the influence of the Enlightenment) were, in their "deism" suggesting something very similar to the "nature philosophy" of Buddhism. Thomas Paine for example.

[@robertwilliams8364]

I think there is a tendency to want Dharma to easily fit our world view, and not be challenged. It is not blind faith to accept rebirth, to have an open mind and a reasonable confidence about it. But to reject it completely because it doesn't accord with your intellect, with your philosophy, that then is a rejection of practice. That is a closed mind. It is reasonable to want to know for oneself, but if you reject what the Buddha said before you have awakened yourself, that is not seeking the truth, that it is looking to find affirmation of your opinion, it is the ego holding onto a view. Similarly, to hold a concrete, 100% belief in rebirth before you really know is also a closed mind. But it makes sense to lean towards believing in rebirth if you believe the Buddha found the truth. .. if you think the Buddha was mistaken, then why even follow his path if you think it leads to untruth ?

[@jnanashakti6036]

I need to study more, but I've always kind of thought Buddha was only a bit off about rebirth. Now, this is from second-hand interpretation, so my sources may have not gotten what he was saying. My understanding of rebirth is that those parts of the universe that make "me" up (at least speaking about matter) will decay and rot. those cells will move on through decomposition, and recompose itself into a new "thing." Our cells have intelligence, and that energy continues with us. So, the cells that make me up will eventually become a tree or a rat or whatever. Same with the spirit and mind. Once it is free of the material confines of the body and brain, it goes back into the "ether" of its energetic dimension, and pieces recompose into new "things." It's not a complete reincarnation of one spirit or mind. That's why a lot of us don't have memories of past lives... because not enough of that spirit formed our current spirit. But, sometimes, a large part of a past life comes together to form the new collection of spirit and our brain can access it and remember it.

[@cassandra5516]

Rosie the Resister I was nodding right along with you until your last sentence! But that's fine, we don't need to agree with everybody ☺

[@hahayana8607]

very brilliant talk.

[@sanujasenanayake]

Secular or not the problem is with popularity increasing now days, Buddhism also will turn into same as Christianity. Unfortunately this is true for all religions. With increased in followers, there will be a decrease in proper true core values of the it. Best example is the modern day Christian politics of USA. Thanks for the video.

[@AxelBliss]

you are a small man a bind one not a true Buddhist you want to protect "pure" Buddhism from western mistakes Buddhism does not need your protection you cannot stop the flow you must understand, it does not matter what others think do not be a soldier of faith if you kill their mistakes, you are a harmful criminal to me you push against the flow of things, against the river of life, you act in vain. let the others make mistakes, speak about your beliefs, not your anti-beliefs both mistakes and truths are part of the flow, each mistake and each lie may be true under a different prism, even in an alien tongue, a lie if translated may be the biggest truth, are you trying to protect us? to save us? from whom? you teach us to build walls against the "others" the mislead, and let's assume that all follow your teachings and never make mistakes, understand pure Buddhism as it is, that will make you happier? do you think that will change the flow? that is what you want? to stand against the river of life? to make us all perfect? pure and correct? you must not care about good and wrong let the others be, accept them teach them only to listen to the flow, do not translate them what they are supposed to listen do not kill the soul of lies, there are no good slayers, who are you to tell us what is correct? why don't you respect the fresh childish pseudo-Buddhists? I respect their tender joyful smile, their Buddhism is awry and not pure, they manipulate Buddhism to serve their needs like you do, let them play, only speak about your truth without to harm their lies teach them to wait, to listen to the river if you teach them not to make mistakes, you will never make them Buddhists, maybe Buddhist scholars that know all inner meanings wisdom is not a frozen absolute knowledge, wisdom is to let the flow inside you do not kill, not even lies do not teach, love and accept I love young children with all their clumsy mistakes and freshness young children are even old people that follow a useful distortion of Buddhism let them play, I accept them as they are they can wake up only by themselves, you can only love, wait, speak about your positive ideas, not blame their mistakes, you must not kill a mistake, let it evolve into a new reality, again and again for there are no absolute truths, if you believe so, you are like them it is dangerous to teach children, they interpret the words we never are wise enough to teach, we are wise enough to love, wait, speak about positive things what we learned through life if you kill the delusions for your pupils, they will never evolve don't you know that most mothers want their children to behave the best way, most nations want their citizens not to commit crimes? they teach them not to do crimes or how to behave, but people do not understand teachings, people need love, time, learn to wait, learn to accept, so they are able to allow the flow in them you cannot teach that with words, ok you might use some positive non criticising ideas you can just love, and wait do not force your interpretation of the flow into others, because it is as distorted as their, even if you claim it is better, it is not as absolute as you wish. you wish, you want no, that' s exactly their mistake love, listen, wait, accept teach that if you want to teach but it is better to feel they can teach you, yes, they can teach all of us, even a child can teach us now smile and relax =)

[@Death_User666]

Axel Bliss good response

[@ceeemm1901]

Can Secular Buddhism to Traditional Buddhism or EBT (early Buddhist Text) be compared like Evangelical Christianity to Mystical Christianity?

[@SadisticSenpai61]

That's misrepresenting science and skeptics. Science itself says we don't know enough about the mind/soul to draw a scientific conclusion on the subjects. And skeptics go a step further and say that because we don't have any evidence for it, it is possible that a mind/soul that is separate from physical matter, there is no reason to conclude that it is separate. Personally, I don't see the point of such a debate. We don't have evidence one way or the other, and no matter if rebirth is a thing or not, it doesn't really affect my current life, which is what I need to be focused on, not some hypothetical life that may or may not happen in the future after I die. I don't personally care. If I am reborn, I'll deal with it then, assuming of course that I'll remember anything from this life. All I can do in the here and now is focus on being the best person I can be and my own personal success. But yeah, the teaching of rebirth is where Buddhism crosses from philosophy to religion, not that it's terribly important as most Buddhists don't really seem to focus on it anyway (from what I've seen and heard, which I'll admit is rather limited). It certainly isn't as important to Buddhists as the Christian teachings of the afterlife is to Christians.

[@TravisCBarker]

Agreed. Arguments against secular buddhism often misrepresent it (and science). Binary rhetorical reasoning makes such arguments seem more reasonable than they are.

[@splatted6201]

What is it to "take rebirth seriously" that is not a case of believing it? I don't mean to be difficult, but this probes at the key idea of where the border between 'secular' (non-)buddhism and traditional buddhism lies. Does taking the claims about rebirth seriously mean that you must resolve to believe them, while recognizing the degree to which you don't? Does it meaning looking for a sense in which the teaching in the text is metaphorically valuable for oneself and resonant with other textual teachings, even when one lacks belief in the literal proposition? Does it mean finding correlates of the rebirth cosmology within the moments of meditative experience, with the goal of identifying more clearly the cycles from which we desire release and from which we are released through relinquishing desire? Does it mean just keeping our minds open, and not constantly trying to reinterpret what 'traditionalists' say, so that we can listen to other more immediately practical dhamma (and secondarily guarding our speech and conduct so that we allow 'secularists' and 'traditionalists' to share intellectual and social resources without encouraging the splitting off a separate 'secular' version of each of the many buddhist traditions)?

[@therealMuddyZombie]

+splatted TO UNDERSTAND KARMA PROPERLY IT TAKES A SERIES OF LIVES ALA REINCARNATION. IT IS THE CAUSE OF YOUR CONDITIONS, PREVIOUS LIVES AND MOMENTS

[@audreymarihugh-bouck806]

Thank you

[@sakunamanussa9876]

Shortly before his death, the Buddha laid down the "Four Great References" as a measure of how one could tell if a teaching was authentic or not, if it was uttered by the Buddha or not: DN 16

[@vjagpal]

Buddhism sounds amazingly similar to Sikhism, except the experience during meditation is known as relation or conscious connection with God that also purifies mind and encouage good karma. I like this very much. Thank you

[@sineath3]

I believe the title has a typo it should be "Secular Buddhism" not "Circular Buddhism"

[@vimipa]

yes, it should be secular.

[@drivebypoet]

I agree. To me it sounds like he's saying secular, and also secular makes more sense to me in this context.

[@BroccoliRocks]

Thank you for bringing up a touchy topic. I like Buddhism, I like Science. I don't think either have much to do with each other unless definitions are stretched. I follow Ajahn Brahm because he offers the modern westerner more than someone else's outdated superstitions. He offers things which makes people's lives either. Reading translations of the Palic Canon I just don't get that.

[@sakunamanussa9876]

4 + 8 = enough In the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta (DN 16) the Buddha said: "In whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, there is not found the Noble Eightfold Path, neither is there found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, or fourth degree of saintliness. But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Now in this Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, is found the Noble Eightfold Path; and in it alone are also found true ascetics of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Devoid of true ascetics are the systems of other teachers. But if, Subhadda, the bhikkhus live righteously, the world will not be destitute of arahats. In other words, spiritual progress depends on the Noble Eightfold Path!

[@ADIMM0]

I think you're grossly misunderstanding Secular Buddhism. Secular Buddhists accept the 4 Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. The only things they don't accept are rebirth and Karma, something which obviously was picked up from Brahmic influence. You can't have a secular Islam or Christianity, the whole point is to embrace Buddhist precepts like Impermanence and suffering. Just like one can take teachings from Greek Philosophical schools of thought.

[@cariyaputta]

@@ADIMM0 "rebirth and Karma, something which obviously was picked up from Brahmic influence" I don't think this is the case, there is clearly many school of thoughts in ancient India, some school accept rebirth and some don't, the Buddha does not just pick something up without reason, and he always redefine the meaning of the words he picked. The Buddha position is always opposite with Brahmic or Jainism doctrines. I think you should read the sutta to get the idea for yourself, not some surface speculation. suttacentral.net

[@Neoplasie1900]

From my understanding, a secular buddhism does not denounce the ideas of Karma and rebirth, but says it is not of value for them for this life. The general idea is not to stay completely materialistic but to ground one's views in what is experienced - as the Buddha told his desciples to do. I am fairly convinced that should evidence arise in karmic rebirth, hell realms and heavenly realsm in a literal sense, also followers of a secular buddhism would accept it. As for Karma, I found this quote from the Secular Buddhist Association's web page: "Those who believe in non-literal Rebirth tend to believe that Kamma can be as simple as, “All actions (and intentions) have consequences,” and those consequences can be “external” and/or “internal” and occur at some point/s in this life and/or even influence the world beyond lifetimes." After all, I would say a kind secular buddhist trying to bring more peace to the world is going in a very good direction, regardless of believe in gods or other realms of being or literal rebirth. If those things are revealed in deep meditations (I cannot say they do; I have as of yet not experienced any myself), their views might change. Maybe they don't. And I still think it's ok.

[@1809steph]

From my own analysis about rebirth , actually the Abrahamic religions do believe in rebirths , as the actual self , instead of the buddhist views of different selfs in the real world .. However the Abrahamic religions (Christianity , Judaism , Islam) , only has two places for rebirths , as their own self , that is only in Hell or Heaven . They may not like to use the word rebirths ??, but I think it is actually the same thing , but different . Good talk AJAHN....*bow*

[@jarvinajoku]

Shariputra,forget what I taught the last 30 years, I would now teach the unsurpassed way to enlightenment. The Wisdom Of The Lotus Sutra. Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.

[@JudoMateo]

That's hilarious!

[@sakunamanussa9876]

Dhammakathiko Sutta: The Teacher of the Dhamma (SN 12.16)

[@BladeofmoonlightKitto]

Secular Buddhism is important because it is a bridge for people with religious trauma. People that grew up traumatized are scared or angry and it becomes hard to accept anything that resembles their trauma. Secular Buddhism is a bridge to Buddhism it offers the healing and wisdom of the path to people who would otherwise be scared of the label.

[@DjsmrKpbrt]

❤❤❤

[@ChannelScottify]

I am reborn in every moment. I am not the same person I was when I started watching this video. As for "living past my own death", my experience doesn't support this. Being reborn as an animal, as I understand it, is fully appreciating the life of an animal is such a way that you lose yourself and for that moment, at least, you are the animal. Secular Buddhism might not be the best name or way of describing this school of thought. However, there are many forms of Buddhism all around the world. The name doesn't matter. Compassion is universal. Faith can be twisted and used to manipulate people. Secular Buddhism protects people from faith.

[@terbospeed]

Can any single system encompass and explain all of reality?

[@swedendive]

The problem with theravada Buddhism is that they add deep prayers to Buddha and only Monks can get enlightments. Well Theravada is good in some ways = many gold statues.

[@SBCBears]

Wrong on all counts.

[@Andre-tf4zt]

"Theravada is this ...", "Theravada is that ..." ... Criticizing the tradition as if it had absolute and static independent characteristics is to completely misrepresent the teachings of emptiness / no-self. There is no intrinsically "conservative" Theravada and no intrinsically "liberating" Mahayana. I spent nearly a decade practicing Mahayana / Dzogchen Buddhism and ended up abandoning these traditions due to the excess of blind beliefs and superstitions that these traditions (commonly said as "the fastest way", "open minded" or "free from the layers of cultural beliefs") was demanding me to believe. And ironically, I just found a way of practicing the Dharma in a way that truly respects my skepticism and freedom of thought in certain Buddhist circles related to Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Buddhadasa, and Ven. K. Nanananda, all rightfully theravadins.

[@TravisCBarker]

@@Andre-tf4zt Agreed. Same with secular practice

[@toolman8538]

Buddhism is a religion. You are relying on the teachings of the Buddha that it will lead you to truth. I am not trying to disrespect, but I do have a problem with Buddhists always referring back to Buddha but then talk about relying on the self. Just seems a little bit hypocritical. When the Buddha says... When the Buddha says... it must matter if Buddha said it. WHY, would I trust Buddha when he cared for himself and not others.

[@LilBitDistributist]

Toolman85 Where does it say that he didn't care for others? He threw away a comfortable life of wealth and luxury to try and figure out why suffering exists in order to stop it. He found it and loved the world so much that he gave his experience in teachings so the entire planet can lose suffering and develop love for one another.

[@PhoenixProdLLC]

Timothy Chadd Um, he totally abandoned his wife and their new child. Yeah, nice guy huh?

[@cassandra5516]

If that's the case than any area of science that has a textbook and a teacher/leader in the field is a religion.

[@PhoenixProdLLC]

Yeah, I think there's definitely a case to be made that secularists should just start they're secularists. Which is fine. Unitarians are especially secularists. But including 'buddhism' in their title is, to me, rather deceptive. The problem with Buddhism in the West, whose societies ensure secularism so that many faiths and ethnicities can live together without any one controlling the laws that govern everyone, (quite groundbreaking actually! And not to be messed with), is the fact of its metaphysical claims, (the 4 noble truths for example), and its cosmology, which simply cannot be proven anymore than that shamans can enter a jaguars body, and the shaman believes that as strongly as Buddhists do in ghosts. More than any other human system, Science *delivers* on its truths. For one, nothing can become a Theory without enormous rigor, evidence, examination, AND consensus by other scientists world wide. Testable and observable results repeated constantly with the same results. No way can any religion compete with that. No way. AND, Religion has a long and proven record of trying to shut Science, and scientists, down and silence Facts and Evidence. So, Religion proves itself unreliable and oppressive while demanding unquestioning belief from its adherents, and even those who don't adhere. Science does NOT do any such thing. It ADVOCATES challenging claims and assertions, as does Philosophy. Philosophy generally builds off the evidence of Science to get to the Ethical applications of Science and then the Legal application, as Ethics informs Law. As for the 'mind/body' connection Brahmali sir, I think it would be more useful to make a distinction between Brain and Mind for your spiritual beliefs sake. I think the failure to make this distinction in the West causes a lot of confusion. Three Brain is part of the CNS and thoughts are generated by the Brain. This absolutely HAS been proven. Beyond all doubt and repeatedly ad infinitum. In the West, therefore, Brain and Mind will be thought of as One. There are things Science has NOT solved for, and they lay more in the social sciences than any other discipline. It is in this area Religion may find its survival but it has very little time left to do so.

[@lamylamy8388]

I agree, absolutely!

[@sakunamanussa9876]

See The Discourse on the Snake Simile Alagaddupama Sutta (MN 22) www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel048.html

[@naegling3]

... but that's because the mind IS matter.

[@japandata]

To the line dance!!!

[@10010x0x0x01101XX0X1]

if you believe in reincarnation, that's fine. if you don't believe in reincarnation that's fine too. this monk gets into serious trouble though by saying since the Buddha said there is reincarnation, then that is proof that reincarnation is true. that is the definition of dogma, and the definition of religion. The questions then becomes, so everything the Buddha said is true? So the Buddha attained enlightenment after his epic battle with Mara the temptation devil? You can't just be a nice kind buddhist without believing in Mara the magical vedic temptation demon? Well, if that's the case, count me out. I'm all set with believing in dumb magical sky wizard stuff - there's more than enough of it in the religion I was raised with, I don't need to take on the idiotic things other people's religions say.

[@therealMuddyZombie]

+bugs maru REINCARNATION IS TRUE AND THE BUDDHA SAID SO. YOU REALLY HAVE TO BELIEVE IN THAT TO BE A bUDDHIST PERIOD

[@PhoenixProdLLC]

Shrugs Haru you might prefer Stephen Batchelors secularism then.

[@robertwilliams8364]

Many westerners like Buddhism because it rejects a creator god, and so they falsely assume it is compatible with a materialist worldview, but it really isn't. If that is what you are looking for then it is not the path for you.

[@fredrikpetersson6761]

Religious pundit defending his turf.

[@SS-wz8po]

It is what you think. It is until it isn't, Lord Buddha.

[@simontanner4568]

Some people have started to take some ideas from Buddhism and integrate them into a western humanist system. This guy thinks that the resulting synthesis is not really Buddhism. But I don't care what it's called. I find some Buddhist ideas and practices useful, and I think Stephen Batchelor (a self-described secular Buddhist) is very helpful, interesting and thoughtful. As an ex-fundamentalist, I just don't have any interest in anything that smacks of dogma and superstition.

[@MrGunwitch]

Don't let residual aversion to your former religion cloud the potential to realise something greater through the Dhamma. To use an analogy, your rationale is like a kid who has a bad experience at one school and then says that all schools must be bad, ergo I'm not going to school!

[@sakunamanussa9876]

Abbhacikkhana Sutta (AN 2:24)

[@hahayana8607]

funny typo

[@srimathisumathi3212]

Thank you Bhante for a clear exposition of the issues. With metta to all.

[@sakunamanussa9876]

and when you do not understand the meaning of my statements, then ask either me about it or those bhikkhus who are wise. };^)

[@Death_User666]

sir secular Buddhists will save the movement if you do not change with the times you die

[@MichaelBonanno305]

He posits the qeustion: Is secular Buddhism necessary. His problem is that he does not seem to hold out the possibility that the mind is purely the creation of processes in the brain. Secular Buddhist will generally say the mind is just a product of the brain. So he's pretty much answered his own question: is Secular Buddhism necessary. Yes it is because we view the mind differently than religious Buddhists. He then basically just pull the classic "monk move", "then your not a Buddhist". Well fine call me not a Buddhist but at the beginning of your talk you talked about creating more splits. You've just argued for the biggest split of all. It's quite clear that you've grew up with religion so you've simple imported one your liking and it seems to fill that void for you. Had you been closer to religion as a child you may have been more able to enjoy release from it's constricting view of reality

[@therealMuddyZombie]

+Michael Bonanno SO YOU THINK MATTER MAKES MIND THAT IS THE ATHEIST POSITION, TYPICAL OF A SECULAR Buddhist.BUDDHISM IS MIND MAKES MATTER

[@MichaelBonanno305]

Turd, why are you shouting? That's a common fundamentalist problem. Also you are trying to say who is a Buddhist and who isn't. I haven't said "matter makes the mind". I've said based on my evidence presented that is the most likely scenario. And if you are a fundamentalist then that position scares the bleep out of you. The secular position is simply that all this stuff that you cannot prove is simply not necessary... and the Buddha himself backs up this idea. Stick with what is here and now, the afterlife either will or will not happen regardless of what you contort yourself into believing. So.... Be here .... now.

[@MrGunwitch]

Secular Buddhism is destined for a short shelf-life. This is but one of a myriad of articles which highlights the deficiencies: www.consciouslifestylemag.com/non-local-consciousness-and-the-brain/

[@swedendive]

Good speach. But regarding Rebirth - you can be 100% Buddhist even if you dont believe in Rebirth. I think Rebirth is a Dogm. And Dogm dont belong in Buddhism.

[@PhoenixProdLLC]

swedendive Do you mean 'dogma'??

[@swedendive]

yepp

[@bgs3512]

Refusal to change is the death of progress. Some of the talks from even respected Monks sounds so much like those from apologists from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc. The insistence on believing in / acceptance of rebirth to me reeks of dogma and is what is keeping me away from accepting Buddhism fully. Though I do consider Buddhism far superior to other 'religions'.

[@SBCBears]

"Refusal to change is the death of progress." Assuming change is progress. How young one must be to accept that notion.

[@swedendive]

I think Ajahn Brahmali is to much in the Theravada. Theravada is near "god like". Maybe he should be Christian instead.

[@Andre-tf4zt]

"Theravada is this ...", "Theravada is that ..." ... There is no intrinsically "conservative" Theravada and no intrinsically "liberating" Mahayana. I spent nearly a decade practicing Mahayana / Dzogchen Buddhism and ended up abandoning these traditions due to the excess of blind beliefs and superstitions that these traditions (commonly said as "the fastest way", "open minded" or "free from the layers of cultural beliefs") was demanding me to believe. And ironically, I just found a way of practicing the Dharma in a way that truly respects my skepticism and freedom of thought in certain Theravada circles.

[@TheKetsa]

Secular, nor circular :p