Wonderful explanation! You have a very rare ability, Doug: You can present complex topics in a readily comprehensible manner. Sāti is an interesting character. I imagine him asking the legendary Bodhidharma: _"What is the ultimate meaning of the holy truths of Buddhism?"_ _"Vast emptiness, no holiness," replied Bodhidharma._ _"Who stands here before me?" asked Sāti._ _"Don’t know," said Bodhidharma._ Or something like that: _"Who are you?"_ _"George Quinn."_ _"This is your name. But who are you?"_ _"Ah, I was born in London, so I'm an Englishman."_ _"You told me the place where you were born as well as your nationality. But who are you?"_ _"Ah, now I see what you're aiming at. I am a psychologist."_ _"It's your job. But who are you?"_ _"I am a human, after all!"_ _"It's your biological species. But who are you?"_ _..._ Keep peeling... 🧅😁 ...and be well... 🙏
Any extreme, dualistic or absolute view of self would be wrong view (in the relative world of impermanence/time-space). Sustaining wise attention to our experience of existential suffering generates the right view & intention to go beyond suffering by ending ignorance and attachments to five aggregates, including vijñāna (Pali term for consciousness). Thank you.
Thank you for this most helpful teaching on the self/no-self/karma/re-birth connections/conundrums. Especially appreciate your concluding view of the four noble truths as useful "attending," skillful means!
Ad. 8:00 In Neuroscience there is a new framework of Jeff Hawkins. He call it Thousand Brains and states that every cortical column builts it's own complete model of the world but just on a small amount of sensors (for example some eye cells). Columns vote together. Thalamus is a gateway to neocortex and the way it works also seems to go according to Dhamma. So it is rediscovered in science now.
Good afternoon, Doug! Thank you so much for another fascinating video! I wanted to ask you a question about a matter that I do not understand: When a person reaches nirvana and years later dies, does he absolutely cease to exist? If so, why do many Buddhists claim to communicate with and receive help from the Buddha and other buddhas? Why do they speak of paradises where buddhas live? It gives me the feeling that these ideas seem to affirm the imperishable existence of a self (that of each buddha) that persists after their death and that can participate in the events that occur in our lives. Thanks for your teachings. I wish you an excellent day.
Yes this is a good question and is one of the differences between earlier and later Buddhism. In early Buddhism the status of an enlightened being who dies is one of the "unanswered questions". They neither exist nor do not exist nor both nor neither.
Thanks for your answer, Doug! That is very interesting!
2 роки тому+1
The Buddha gave the similie of the fire being extinguished. For us who define "fire" NOT as the reaction with the coming-together of combustive material, oxygen and heat but as the "red animated hot tongue" then "fire" ceases to exist from our understanding / concept as soon as there's not enough conditions for us to see it. What we perceive of the Buddha - in person - is like we perceive / conceptualize "fire". As long as we still use worldly perception and view to regard the Buddha, we would end up with either the Buddha exists / ceases to exist after death. However, the reality is beyond "naming" in the similar way as if we start to understand that "fire" is not just "fire" but results of things put together.
Consciousness within the person appears to ebb and flow as each day passes and experience and perspective always changing but what appears most enduring are those associations we have come to know and through right view, action, and mindfullness may become free.
That is something that must have been taught by Gotama or devised in an early community of his followers in the first 400 years of oral tradition, because it is what is original in all of the Early Buddhist Texts' corpora.
I think that the only reason that people wanted continuation of consciousness is a baked in promise of continuity. I personally believe that the universe is one organism and that upon death ,the constituent parts return to the whole and the consciousness is then presented in a different form, but there is no built in collective memory, and each manifestation is equal to each other just different because on a macro level each individual is in fact a magnification of a small part of the one whole universal form.
I'm not sure offhand which number four it is (it's been awhile), but one of the primary practices in attending to suffering is just mindfulness meditation! Be mindful of all things, including the suffering or stress or unsatisfactoriness you feel.
@@DougsDharma Thank you so much. I’m very glad you said that. I’ve been intuiting it for some time and it’s good to get the confirmation . I’m really enjoying your videos. I like the way you actually refer to the scriptures ( Sutta) and unwrap them. It’s reassuring. 🙏🏻
The meaning of the words 'anātma' or 'anattā' are 'non-self', but some people translate the word 'anattā' as “with no refuge” or “without essence”. I guess they think that Anatta is similar to Anartha (Non-beneficial, No meaning or Unwanted things). So I guess it is better to use 'non-self' and non-significant-self' or non-significant-soul or non-beneficial' words when we describe the word 'Anatta' or 'Anātma'.
@@DougsDharma Yes. the word non-self is not bad. I also use it, but some people in Thailand don't like to use it. So I thought they would agree with something like this: non-consistent-self or non-significant-self'.
I am always curious about rebirth but after viewing your video realises us that atman concept is also cause of suffering. Thank you very much sir...we must avoid taking rebirth
@@veereshnayak3714 According to Mahayana Buddhism, there are eight types of consciousnesses. In addition to the six well-known consciousnesses (i.e. sight, hearing, smell, taste, feelings through touching, thinking, there are also manas (ego), and alayavijnana. The alayavijnana is sort of a storage of accumulated consciousnesses as I understand according to the Mahayana tradition. It is this consciousness that is carried from lifetime to lifetime. Since our consciousnesses change in accordance with our continued perceptions and conceptions and experiences, the alayavijnana consciousness continuously changes as well. I don't know if the Theravada Buddhist tradition share such view.
The Chan buddhists have a term, "wu wei" ...meaning no calculated action or doing no-thing when contemplating unsatisfactory phenomena thus allowing illumined mind take care of itself.
Over the years, I have come to differentiate between the ideas of reincarnation vs rebirth. It is my understanding that many Buddhists believe that we do not "continue" in any way after death. I believe that we do continue in the sense of 'rebirth' (intention) as opposed to reincarnation (same "me,"/different body). As a result, I wonder if it could be an improper view to think, "I am suffering today because of what I did yesterday, yester-year, or in another lifetime." In a sense, what happens to us is the result of cause and effect, but if stress/suffering simply *is,* then, don't "bad things" happen just because... they do? In other words, we only have to die if we've been born. I think there is, as you say, tension, between these ideas as well. So, in the end, all we can control is our reactions to what happens. So, it seems that there is truth in the saying: "There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so." I like your expression, "correct attending." This will be helpful in helping me to remember to not fall prey to thinking that stress/suffering is destiny. Still, it could be destiny (in a good sense) if we are mindful that we feel suffering, but choose, ultimately, not to suffer. 🤔Thank you! This was both fascinating and surprising in the sense that I thought a "secular" Buddhist would have just said, in answer to your presentation's title, "Nothing!" (End of video)😅 Perhaps I'm a secular Buddhist but just don't know it yet... My apologies for "talking" so much.
Wonderful Vivian, no worries about “talking”! Yes as with so many things there are nuances and nuances. There is no permanent, unchanging “self” that receives the benefit of our past actions, but there is a stream of connected states of mind and body that does. So dwelling on “was that really me?” or “will that really be me?” isn’t helpful for the Buddha. Just practice on kindness, calm, compassion right now. That’s all. 🙂
Hi Doug. I know this is an older video so you might not want to respond to this question. However, I’ll give it a go. When you talk about the ‘eye consciousness’ and the Buddha statue, what is the cause of the ‘eye conscious’ to arise? We cannot say that the object of perception exists before the perceiving consciousness apprehends it. I’m talking about the moment of perception. The Himalayas may exist, but they are not an object of perception for me because I am not looking at them. If an object of perception exists prior to my perception of it, then the object is not dependent upon my perception of it. It is not dependently arising. We cannot say that there is a perceiving consciousness if it has no object of perception. Both the observing consciousness and the object of perception are dependent upon one another. If we assume a perceiving consciousness exists prior to an object of perception, then this would imply that perceiving consciousnesses are self instituting and can ‘exist’ without an object of perception, which seems absurd to me. So, the third possibility is that the object of perception and the perceiving consciousness arise at the same time. However, this appears to contradict the Buddha’s (and later teachers’) views. If the object of perception and the perceiving consciousness arise at the same time, there is no cause and effect. The perceiving consciousness is not the cause of the perceived object and vice versa. If both arise at the same time then they do so independent of each other. Do you have any views on this rather confusing issue?
Well in early Buddhism this question isn't answered directly, though "contact" (between external sense base, internal sense base, and consciousness) is analogized in several places as akin to pieces of wood that are rubbed together to produce fire. This suggests that the wood may exist independently of the fire they produce, particularly if we think of consciousness as the "fire" that arises when external and internal sense bases meet.
@@DougsDharma Hi Doug. Thanks for taking the time to respond. I really appreciate it. It's a really interesting conundrum. For every moment of awareness (assuming time 'exists') there appears to be at least 3 components; an object of perception, the perceiving aspect, and then there appears to be another aspect which 'records' the moment of awareness. It's relatively straight forward to conclude that in order to have a perceived object there must be a perceiver. It would be easy if I could accept that there could be a perceiving consciousness which 'precedes' objects of consciousness, but this makes no sense to me. Could this be the 'luminous' mind?
I can't imagine a more meaty (and mouthwatering!) a video than were you to care to expand upon ''the six wrong views that arise when we attend improperly to views of self''. I should not wish to be like poor Sati! His comfortably fuzzy'', ''perennial philos'' ; ''it all comes down to the same ideas'' (when, of course, it most assuredly does not) type view is to be found today in dozens of books and videos, and so I was really shaken when I read Bhikku Bodi's translation of The Buddha's publicly savaging the man. ''Call no man a fool''.(Unless it might save him from the error of ''Sit, Chat, (and especially! ANANDA, when the hell realms gape! Just a suggestion for a channel that could not hardly be a greater gift. This video, combined with Buddhism, Rebirth- A History; and Buddhism, Rebirth -Some Reflections, is the kind of notebook scrawling (yes, I have a designated Dr. Doug notebook!) , talking to myself, pulling books down off the shelf, that makes the juices flow like a college kid and makes me feel young again. I once read the definition of a great sutta, as one that upon completion, demands the meditation pillow! I'm headed there now, and I thank you bhante!
I really like this lecture. It seems to have a lot of answers. I spent quite a bit of time in Thailand and Laos and noted stark differences in western and thai responses to guilt, shame, offences and many other things. For a westerner brought up on Christian morality it is an eye- opener. This is for me is one of your top lectures, having many practical applications
The idea of personhood and relinquishing our personal voice into that of the collective with the knowledge that it will be taken up by another in the future that will stand in our place brandishing the idea in their hand like an every evolving cultural comment.
The idea from the Buddha reflected in early Buddhist teachings is not that we relinquish selfhood into a collective but rather that whatever we consider it is not our self. That includes the larger collective or even the whole universe (a/k/a Brahman).
If we as ourselves are made of energy or matter, then consider the following: If energy cannot be created nor destroyed then energy or matter has always existed in some form ever since the beginning of the universe or before it. In physics these terms can be used interchangeably. This is a law in thermal dynamics. Since we are made of energy and matter and energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed, then that leads me to believe that none of our lives on this earth or any other form of life on earth ever really truly ends or dies. impermanent death, if all things or situations are impermanent. We just continuously change, Into one form of matter or energy or otherwise we become something for someone else or something else. Good work Doug
I had always thought in terms of a "stream of consciousness," one moment of consciousness segues into the next moment, but the aggregate organism notices no change in its self until a large number of successions has occurred. This stream holds the fruit of kamma. But now I'm thinking about the words I use and the words Sati used, and it worries me. Is my perception of a stream of consciousness essentially the same as Sati's perception of an individual consciousness?
A stream of consciousness implies that there is nothing within the stream that continues. It’s only one moment of consciousness that is more or less replaced by another, different moment of consciousness. As such this would be different from Sati’s understanding which is that it’s the same consciousness throughout. 🙂
@@danegraeme991 we can't see the hour hand moving on our watch at a mere glance. we have to look back from time to time to see the change, unless of course we focus our attention carefully. It is possible to look at other aggregates in addition to consciousness too, they also function in the same pattern, stream of form or physical body for instance. all conditioned things have dependent origination.
A stream of consciouness is in another word a stream of thoughts. Thoughts come and go, neither they are the same nor totally different. The last thought at verge of death is immediately followed by thought of rebirth. In scientific term thoughts are electromagnetic energy or microwaves which can be demonstrated by EEG as beta waves. Essentially they are electrons in a stream, just like in electric current. Thoughts can be transmitted from one source to another, there is no time and space barrier for thoughts. Just need a receiver to manifest transmitted thoughts like in radio or TV. They are microwaves. Thoughts make us who we are, our ideas, our inventions, our goodness or evil. Thoughts never die, just go domant when we are in deep sleep and returns once we are awake. Thoughts rule the world, rule the universe. Thoughts only die when we attain Nibanna.
Penso alguna vez traducir al español? En idioma español hay muy poca informacion. Y el traductor de subtitulos es enormemente impreciso y demasiado rapido para temas que requieren mucha atencion. Gracias por sus videos.
I think the problem is the way people are brought up in terms of harnessing the ego. There should be a delineation made between being able to experience and enjoy the life cycle and on the other hand being a progenitor of original thought. Very few people fall into the latter category if at all. But egoistically we puppets with pass me down thoughts assume the right of rebirth and the right to some sort of remembrance of our ill formed manifestations along the way.
Doug,thank you for your great effort to explain this difficult reconcilation karma and non self...my views are karma doctrine goes hand in hand with the path to Awakening and act as a skillful mean to kick start the process with explaination of non self to knit in later..I maybe wrong.
The of what continues on must be taken on in two ways. There is an answer for secularism which differs from those who ask what continues on after death. Both answers are made clear in the Abhidhamma texts.
Towards the end, it was said that we can feel better about ourselves because we wouldn’t be the same person we were yesterday that did anything, but if we did anything good, that would not be us either, to that I would have to ask what’s the incentive? What’s the point of anything if it’s going to cease to be me?
A very similar line of argument occurs from Hume to Kant. From what you say about the Buddha, Doug, Hume held very similar views - perceptions are concatenations, or "bundles" with no underlying logic or metaphysics. Kant woke from his "dogmatic slumbers" to respond with the Critique of Pure Reason and a transcendental structure of cognition. Even so, Kant didn't seem to rediscover the self, there was a realm about which we cannot speak (which echoes forward to early Wittgenstein) - the noumenal world (the world outside Plato's cave). In other words, its not to say there is an enduring self or soul (or that there isn't); its simply that which about we cannot speak, given our embodied being-in-the-world. That said, how can the idea that we should relax about ourselves because of temporal discontinuity fit with karmic concretion and the idea of being responsible for how we were, how we are and how we will be?
The Buddha’s view so far as I can see it was closest to Hume’s when it comes to the self. All there are are the five aggregates, mental and physical states causally conditioning one another. For the Buddha this causal conditioning was partially karmic. There is no concrete “we” to be responsible for, but there is a karmically conditioned stream of ever-changing aggregates.
This might be taken as a controversial point, but with the great attention given to transexualism in the West in recent years, I often find myself wondering if people who are suffering body dysmorphia could benefit from a Buddhist inspired view of the (non) self. It seems to me that this condition is very dependent on believing there is a core identity that is an essential and permanent feature of their mind, and the body must be modified to accommodate it. But non self teaching would contradict that key part of their self understanding. I guess one could say the same about depression, which at it's worst has sufferers believing things will never change. I presume there has been psychotherapy with Buddhist influence, but I haven't read about it. I also believe that it is the case that true deep depression simply doesn't respond to psychotherapy of any kind. I guess, going back to body dysmorphia, the question whether it can respond to psychotherapy, too.... Thoughts, anyone?
To end suffering, think correctly and follow path laid out by Buddha. Your thoughts are very good. Keep it up. The self is like the river, transient. Thus, there is no unchanging identity or self. Currently, as a society, we are in the process collectively trying to sort this out. To end our collective suffering, we will need to think correctly and follow the path.
Well, i see in this way: what we call "me" is just memories, experiences, things that depends upon our physiology, when we die, this is over. But our actions have consequences, and those consequences, this karma, will continue to go on. I see karma as a impersonal mechanism that allow things and life to manifest itself. So, when this body dies, another life may come, as a consequence of this karma that generated this life that i call "mine", and added with the karma that this life that i call "mine" generated. This next life is not "me", but it have a relation with the karma that "i" generated. Is nothing personal, there is no relation of identity between those lives. There is no "re-born" because there is no one that have been born at all, at the first place. There is no "re-incarnation", because there was no "incarnation" at the first place. What we call ourselves is just some process of the universe, absolutely impersonal processes, and karma is just the mechanism that allow that to happen. This is how i see this topic. If someone have some thoughts on it, i would love to hear it!
I love this topic because I do believe it is something people tend to get hung up on. You need only ask yourself what is reborn and this gets much easier. The second thing is to realize that whether you believe in rebirth or not will not effect whether or not you are reborn. The third thing I like to mention is to not worry about karma from one life to another. Look at karma in your daily life. Have you ever known someone that always has something bad that isn't their fault happening to them? Have you ever known someone that never seems to have anything bad happen to them? Asking yourself why provides many insights.
What about the Boddhisatva idea coming back to help others? The instructions from the Tibetan book of the death? How to practically integrate these two in daily life? Attending improperly; my solution is to label information as “not interesting” Anywhere ‘not interesting’ can be found in old texts as a new type of translation? Example ‘death point’ information or information about next ‘most likely life’ I label not interesting although I have some knowledge. Intrinsically not interesting, not because it is x years away.
I"m not sure that concepts about future lives can easily be integrated into a daily life practice. They are more for speculation. If it helps your practice to take a vow that involves future lifetimes, then by all means do so.
@@DougsDharma A vow is part mindset, expectation even planning and that can include future life, like bodisatva. I am unusual that I have awareness of parts of previous lives mostly derived from other people. There is the story of a recognised boy that got the exercise to ‘meditate’ on previous lives. He came up with “layperson” and a precise description of him. When he later saw a painting of King Trisong Deutsen it was the description he made, it was still how could he be a dharma king? In the biography of this lama there is more than one page about previous reincarnations. I make a distinction between a real incarnation (sort of direct lineage) and transmitted energies. Both energies make other people recognise a person. So one person can be recognised as several different people who lived at the same time by different people.
The title should read "Does anything continue", because, as stated, it invites the repeat of Sati's error... And then the answer would be very short: "No." Meaning, in terms of absolute truth, there is no "self" at all. The "self" exists only in terms of relative truth, similar to how God or Superman or Unicorn exist. -- The understanding that kamma means "do good now and get good results in the future, do bad now and get bad results in the future" - this is understanding of a run-of-the-mill common person. Nothing to do with Dhamma. In fact, and due to the Law of Idappaccayata, kamma is lightning fast. Kamma is a cause; if there is a cause there must be a result right there and then; if there is a cause *now* , but the result is in future, then that cause is not the cause of that result. A simple simile: a hammer hitting a piece of hot iron results in an immediate change to the piece - the blacksmith doesn't have to wait any amount of time to see the result of his act. Kamma works in exactly the same way. Also, the real difference the Buddha made in the understanding of kamma is his introduction of the 3rd type of kamma: so alongside the traditional "good and bad" kamma, there is "kamma that brings an end to both good and bad kamma". This is exactly what the famous mantra "Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha" points to: going beyond good, going beyond bad, going beyond all dualities, that's where Bodhi is. ---- The final question: if there is *No* (inherently existing) *Self* , then what am "I"? This question is answered in the Fifth Daily Remembrance. I'll save you a Google search: it's Kamma.
This seems so utterly complicated to work out, that it doesnt really lead to the end of suffering, rather the beginning of complete and total confusion. Each way you move seems infused with such doubt as to render the move not worth making. Im starting to think that dropping everything is the only way to be free. I notice that some Buddhists just repeat the Buddhas words like robots, not really wanting to investigate if its actually true, but using it as a shield to hide behind massive doubt. Anyway interesting video.
Thanks for your thoughts Video Master. The basic idea is that getting into thoughts of personal identity are not worth the effort. Better to focus on other things, like dealing with suffering. 🙂
Yes that seems a positive way. I suppose what I am trying to get at, is all this speculation is fine, but unless we can experience any of these truths in person - its no more use than reading a menu in a restaurant. Keep up the good work! @@DougsDharma
Well if we follow the Buddha, he really didn't choose different language. He used ordinary language but just understood that in this case it was a form of speech that didn't really indicate anything solid and unchanging.
Thoughts on the present moment or now: It is the indefinite, constant, continued progress of existence known as human life or the perception and perspective thereof. Given a number of reports and researches either from online sources or otherwise most scientists would agree that our perspective of time or the present moment or now is greatly inhibited, by the fact that it takes our brains a few milliseconds to perceive the present moment or whatever is going on in the present moment either inside stimuli or exterior stimuli. Therefore if it is taking our brains a number of milliseconds to perceive the present moment then there is no such thing as the present moment or what is to be considered as now. Based on all of this we are constantly in a state of what is the past or a memory of what is the present. I'm quite exhausted of hearing this overly expressed notion of be present or be in the moment that seems to be so prominent and prevalent just about anywhere I go. I could also say how my time of now or present is different from your time of now present. time is of course relative. Yes it is true that we all think of different elements or phases of the past, that does not necessarily mean that we are ruminating/worrying about it, sometimes we are reflecting or otherwise remembering what the past was. It is also true that we all think of the future in different ways different elements or different phases or the different dynamics that may play out. However this does not necessarily mean that we are always worrying about the future or what may take place. It could mean that we are trying to set and achieve a goal or set a certain plan intention or motive et cetera. the past leads to what is in the present, the present leads to what is in the future. they are all interdependent sources: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/there-is-no-now/ www.forbes.com/sites/fernandezelizabeth/2019/11/10/are-the-past-and-future-real-the-physics-and-philosophy-of-time/?sh=29f29f1d4905 orbitermag.com/no-such-thing-as-now/
Yes I've done a couple of videos on that topic: What is the Present Moment? ua-cam.com/video/ABQZpxOTqsg/v-deo.html Meditation: Focus on the Present Moment in Early Buddhist Practice -- ua-cam.com/video/z4t-VUhNSkQ/v-deo.html
buddha stopped believing in rebirth as he matured as a teacher. He believed in past life and future life, not past birth and future births. Buddha may have believed in collective arising (sam-udaya) and not past birth or next birth of individual because buddha clearly taught that there is no individual consciousness or eternal inner self to be reborn. So individuals are not born individually but collectively through recycling of the individual with the collective.
If there is no soul, no god just your causal body, as Buddha says, what incarnates? I once come up with a way to explain re-incarnation to an Atheist; 'Re-occurence of Personalities' but even then if re-incarnation is true you will lose your consciousness just like an Athiest; whether the sun goes run the earth or the earth goes round the sun, the experience is the same. Only Maitatreya seems to keep the link, oh sorry that hasn't happened yet.
@@DougsDharma If consciousness is the awareness of thoughts and of other sensations Being in a conscious state of mind, which most of us are in most of the time, can be regarded as citta nupassana, the meditation practice on thoughts that is one of the four methods of vipassana practice?
I wonder if different schools of Buddhism have different ideas about "what continues" and whether or not there is rebirth? I watched some fairly recent You Tube videos with the Dalai Lama on the "nature of consciousness." I got the impression that he believes there is some kind of consciousness that does continue beyond physical death. He has also investigated children who claim to be reincarnated and seems fairly convinced it is possible. So maybe Tibetan Buddhists have a different view than the one described here?
@@DougsDharma Thanks, Doug. I am not a Buddhist, so I probably did not understand what the Dalai Lama was trying to say. I remember it confused the neuroscientists that he was talking with also. You might want to view the videos -- it was a fairly recent conference called The Nature of Consciousness.
Thank you, going to bookmark this one. Interesting set of mis-attendings in relation how people see could cognize each other. Self as mere passing label to refer to close also passing proximity is not logical distortion. Self as a thing is a logical fallacy- nope it changes. . Thinking maybe the most accurate to see others as passing arisings through space that may pretend to be permanent , and suffer when they do. Much a mountain out of a mole hill..
Thank you interesting indeed but the point remains unsolved if reincarnation is assumed to be truth what is that essence that continues if it is not the self , not consciousness what is it then?
While I set aside questions of literal rebirth (my own path is secular), on a traditional understanding there is nothing that literally continues from moment to moment, even within a given lifetime.
Thank you so much for sharing all these video lectures. I founded particularly reveling the one about Non-self. Personally I believe that perhaps this elusive matter is better approached from the experience of meditation
It seems to me a practical, ethical philosophy. I did a separate video on an article I wrote with a colleague awhile back: ua-cam.com/video/PUr-X8Q-HcY/v-deo.html
Buddha said "current Karma defines what will happen in the future, past Karma defines current situation, no one can avoid Karma" Buddha could not avoid karma too. if you do good thing, good future may happen BUT do NOT expect is Buddish way if any expectation, occurs in your mind, now you are NOT training well as Buddish way To understand the Mind work, you have to wake up Sathi by doing mediation as budish monks do. when you understand what happen, you won't have any doubt. learning by doing = right way of buddish
That's right, attend to your current actions and don't spend time worrying about the past or future: ua-cam.com/video/z4t-VUhNSkQ/v-deo.html . Easier said than done! 😄
Yes it relates to identifying with things in the past or future as "Who I really was/am/will be." But since all things are always changing, this is only true in a manner of speaking.
If individual momentary consciousness arise and fall with no underlying string binding them together then how do we justify the effect of karma? It's not me, it won't be me after I die, so who cares? Why should one care?
Well for the Buddha it's neither correct to say that it's exactly the same person later on, nor that it's exactly not the same person later on. The way to understand it is as a causal process following dependent origination. This is the process that secures whatever continuation we have during this very life. As for future lives, I leave that speculation aside as a secular practitioner.
@@DougsDharma We can side-step the metaphysical implications just fine. Even from a secular perspective, that dependent origination is devoid at its core from a person who harvests the good and suffers the bad. Once you get rid of that persistent illusion, what motive is there for a moral life? There's nobody there really to care. Nobody there to suffer.
That this issue is so controversial in Buddhism is not new. It goes back to very early days. I think the Pali canon just reflects that controversy. In some discourses, the Buddha is recorded as expressing what were in contemporary terms, very conventional sounding views to the effect that the individual builds karma and that individual is reborn according to that karma in a linear and traceable causality. In other discourses he seems to doubt this. Famously however he said that whether or not a tatagatha is reborn is too abstruse a question to be worth answering. These inconsistencies have been explained away as being a case of, in a culture where rebirth was a core belief, the Buddha was talking to audiences with different levels of insight. I suspect it’s also very likely that the Pali Canon is heavily influenced by the established doctrine of the times in which it was written down. Imagine the Catholic Church stating there is no heaven and hell. So IMO the better approach is to work out what really follows from the core teaching and to relegate whatever is inconsistent with that. If the basic questions of Buddhism are what is suffering and how is it ended, then a key issue is why, if there is a resolution, does it persist not only almost everywhere we look, but has such historical continuity. To me, this is a question about both history and prophesy. IMO the answer the Buddha gives is karma. Our actions in pursuit of craving and aversion have the effect of a pebble tossed into a pond. If we as individual bodies are the water, the wave energy passes through us and we repeat it’s form. The wave takes its form in the individual but as is a well known, it is an illusion that the water moves forward and in the same way it is it is wrong to think that anything about the physical body of the individual is reborn. It is the energising pattern of consciousness that is repeated in each new person. This then is for its time a profound observation about the long wavelength of culture and the short wavelength of such collective energies as wars and Twitter storms. Because the deep question is how does the human child become inculturated, it easily translates to a discussion about rebirth and to me this is where it is easy for a difficult insight to be rendered in a simplistic manner. I think this is reflected in the notion of the Bodhisattva. Although a complex idea, a key feature is that there can’t really be liberation until all beings are liberated. The karmic energy of the mass of humans means that individual liberation is a unsatisfying result. It leaves unanswered the challenges of compassion and as we know, the Buddha chose to teach, not to hide away.
Thanks for your thoughts Austin. To be clear, while these matters have provoked controversy and confusion over the years, I don't think the Buddha thought of them as at all inconsistent. To him, the mechanism of kammic rebirth, explained in the chain of dependent origination, was fully consistent with nonself. That broke down however at awakening which is why he saw no possible answer to the questions as to what happened to the Tathāgata after parinibbāna. 🙏
To me the question is more whether the discourses that are attributed to the Buddha stand the test of logical consistency. So I think there are inconsistencies for example between dependent origination as explained in the Ancient City SN 56:11, which supports, if I understood you, your account of moment to moment change in the individual mind, and the account of Why Beings Fare as they do After Death MN 41 which is a more full on in its mythological framework of reference. I am sorry to any You Tubers about quoting references. I usually try and avoid that.
Yes, there is a tension between a moment-to-moment understanding of dependent origination and rebirth over lifetimes. I myself don't believe that rebirth occurs over lifetimes. But I don't see any logical inconsistency there, and don't see that the framework found in SN 12.65 the Ancient City (SN 56.11 is the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta) is inconsistent with conventional Buddhist understandings of rebirth. What we have there is a cryptic claim about consciousness and nāmarūpa that could be interpreted in various ways, and given the mass of conflicting claims in the canon it would be particularly tendentious I think to interpret that claim as saying that there was no consciousness prior to this lifetime. It is more likely saying something like that consciousness disappears with nāmarūpa just as it appeared with it in this lifetime. We have a fuller account of this mutual causation between consciousness and namarūpa in the Mahānidāna Sutta (DN 15) that explicitly discusses the (supposed) mechanism for rebirth. For more on this general subject see my video on dependent origination: ua-cam.com/video/A2cDhGVgb9A/v-deo.html 🙂
The inconsistency to me is that dependent origination explains suffering in the context of the now accepted mechanisms of the brain and the brain’s place in and contact with the environment whereas there is a mechanism gap when it is referred to in support of the transmission of karma into another life. I think DN15 is pretty ambiguous when it describes this and obviously you don’t find that convincing either. I am not sure what consciousness entering the mother’s womb refers to. It could mean simply intercourse as a volitional act carried out in the pursuit of desire. Or it could mean some kind of transfer of the soul which would be an idea from a different school. But the whole discussion seems to have been a hot topic amongst kings and ascetics: see DN2. And this mechanism gap is surely where modern Buddhism loses credibility for the spiritual purposes that most westerners look to it to solve . But as I say in my main post above, it all makes perfectly good sense if you abandon the attempt to use karma as a distributor of social justice. If however you are a king and you want to promote a religion that promotes morality and social order, then you do want karma to be a doctrine of justice and retribution. Which to me is the tension between the Buddha as radical existential philosopher and the Buddha as a pillar of the social order. Thanks 🙏
Yes indeed, thanks. FWIW consciousness entering the womb cannot be taken as a transfer of the soul, that's Sāti's mistake in MN 38. It is supposed to be a kind of causal conditioning, by the last moment of consciousness in the prior life conditioning the first moment in the next life, which transfers kammic results. That's the story anyway. Neither of us find it convincing, but at least I don't think it involves any logical contradiction.
I have a number of videos on this topic in a playlist that might interest you. The last video deals with traditional notions of rebirth: Self and Non-self in Buddhism ua-cam.com/play/PL0akoU_OszRjA9n0-U24ZCpfEQVFxeGz2.html
How do you think the buddha would feel if we could show him microbiology and how we are billions of specialised single celled organisms that are born and die over time and working together to make our what we call our bodies
Interesting question Ryan. I imagine he would not find it entirely surprising. He did, after all, consider the body to be made up of a mixture of four elements that run through us at all times.
Another great explanation of a very difficult topic. Thanks! I get an impression that a significant proportion of the benefit to be derived from considering these tough puzzles is in the value of the puzzle itself. That is, the apparent illogicality of stating that there is not a self and there is not no-self causes a short-circuit in our thinking that forces us into deeper consideration than we might have done otherwise. Would you agree with that?
Yes I think there may be something to that Stephen, but unlike in Zen the Buddha wasn’t really into paradoxes. That said, he was definitely into nuance and was particularly concerned that people not get to extremes with ideas of the self.
Buddhism is secular the problem is that the discourses are misconstrued I am born Buddhist and devout guided by parents most likely without any conviction. Recently I discovered Paticcasmuppada Suta and is described as a progression. Something that has universal applications beyond theological aspects and is dialectical
About 10.02 timestamp, it is expressed ".....Buddha's analysis of consciousness into these six kinds and his claim that one of them and another of them basically a substitute over over time with each other so there isn't a single thing.." It seems like Buddha is promoting the same anology of '5 blind men's expression of elephant'. How can one get inspired to such a concept unless one has a strong obsession of presenting something quite averse to the ancient philosophy? And further at 12.41 " ......we tend to cling to the idea of wanting more sensual desires because we think it's the same central desire in the future it'll be the same us in some ultimate sense in the future and so we have to you know we have to cling to that in order to retain it or it tends to make us want to be reborn because we think .." once it is proclaimed that there is nothing like continued existence of the same consciousness, what is this "we" or "the same us" and who is this that "clings"?
I’m not sure what you mean by the ancient philosophy. The Buddha’s philosophy was quite ancient! 🙂 As to your question, the “we” is a conceptual construct out of the ever changing experience of the five aggregates.
While the Vedas predate the Buddha, the Upanishads were roughly contemporaneous. The earliest ones were composed perhaps a century or two before him, but most post dated the Buddha’s lifetime. As for other materials, they long postdate him: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta
@@DougsDharma Well, I have no agenda to prove the fluctuating state of 'wiki'. Enough would be to agree that no one can disregard the incubation and influence of early age philosophical environment.
There is no "thing" that is reborn, at least on a traditional understanding, just as there is no "thing" that persists from moment to moment in this lifetime. All is in a constant state of change: all there is therefore is causal interactions between changing things.
@@DougsDharma First of all, thanks for replying. I'm grasping at some understanding, I was already partial to the idea of karma and reincarnation not being literal, but then how does the non-existence of anything persistent allow for rebirth? What makes Dalai Lama the 'reborn' Dalai Lama, or the Karmapa the 'consciously incarnated' Karmapa? If there's nothing persistent then what's the point of escaping rebirth, what's the point of Nibbana? This feels a little like the concept of Trinity in Christianity.
This reminded me of the avacya (inexpressible self) that I came across on the wikipedia site about Buddhism and from this video I understood that the idea of inexpressible self was not taught by the Buddha but maybe a later development after the Buddha
Let's say something angers you. He cut you off in traffic. Does it not allay the suffering to switch to the thinking of anatta? He is not different at this moment from me, myself. We are both things of dependent origination in the moment. It is hard for me personally to switch from the anger to this abstract notion. But even the effort seems to me to be salubrious. It is perhaps the essential way that my Buddhist belief contributes to equanimity in my life.
Thanks Ben, yes this certainly can be a good practice, and it’s one I’ve heard recommended by a number of contemporary teachers. It’s not a practice one finds in the early tradition however which is something I might do a video on eventually. 🙂
@@DougsDharma I am puzzled by your response. When I look up anatta on Wikipedia I find it is an important concept in the Pali texts. But the explanation there is long and elaborate; perhaps I don't understand it correctly.
Hi Ben, the notion of anatta in the early texts is to understand that nothing in our experience is “I, me, or mine”. In some later traditions that was taken to mean that there was (e.g.) no difference between us and other people, but this was not a technique used in the early texts. I believe this was not used because it might implicitly be taken to expand the scope of “I, me, or mine” to include others and even indeed all of reality. I have a video on non-self that you might want to check out if you haven’t already: ua-cam.com/video/gSZjKKuvHEQ/v-deo.html
My own view on this is heavily influenced by Whitehead’s philosophy of organism where there are series of actual occasions of experience each of which is a successor to it predecessor by virtue of being most influenced by it compared to others. It is the succession of actual occasions that go on. The sense of self is the brain’s representation of itself/biological organism reflected in these actual occasions. Since the brain/biological organism is the thinker of thoughts and receiver of rewards and punishments from prior deeds, we as successions of actual experiences have a sense of being a self or personal agent. Hopefully, this makes sense, at least to someone who is familiar with Whitehead. In any event, it explains why I have trouble with the notion of karmic justice between lives.
The words 'Foolish man' is a wrong translation. Buddha never said like that. Buddha called him 'Empty man'. Buddha only used the words 'Empty man' to address stupid people. That is the only harsh word the Buddha used.
Well the word typically used in these situations by the Buddha is “moghapurisa”. The Pāli Text Society’s dictionary defines “mogha” as “empty, vain, useless, stupid, foolish”, and “moghapurisa” as “a stupid or dense fellow”. So yes, it does also mean “foolish” or “stupid”.
@@DougsDharma Yes, may be the Pali Society use it like that too, because maybe some other people used that word like that, but the Buddha usually mean it as 'Empty'. I have heard that the meaning of the Pali word 'mogha' is 'Empty'.
Imagine new born same gender fake twins, sharing the very same stimulations of the five skandhas and yet ending up with individual skills, preferences, penchants, psychological profiles etc… Co-dependence is as a limited view to explain consciousness origination as evolution is to demonstrate the emergence of the universe.
Buddhism is the 2nd oldest religion in India after Jainism Some people claim Buddhism is originated from Hinduism No No No Buddhist religion is 2600 year old And Hindu religion is only 1000 year old Yes... Vedas are older than Buddhism But you won't find the word Hindu in Vedas King Ashoka had constructed around 84000 Buddha monasteries in India and other Asian countries like Pakistan Afghanistan Sri Lanka Myanmar Bhutan Nepal Cambodia And these old monasteries clear the doubt Some of them have been converted into Temples There was no temple at the time of Bhagwan Buddha Brahmins used to do Hawan Yagna at the king's palaces
Even though I gave the video a thumbs down for revealing such profound mistakes as true and conveying such wrong views as right. It's still a good video because it teaches the controversy.
SaTi made no mistake in the way the video said, & as the video said, but rather the Buddha & Buddhism as this video explained made the mistake. Yet that seems still so sadly to be the Buddhist way that seems to be to take on Karma in order to teach dharma or rather to teach dharma by embracing karma. Translation empathy has a downside, compassion when true does noT, rather compassion is that word to convey that compassion is the way.
Wonderful explanation! You have a very rare ability, Doug: You can present complex topics in a readily comprehensible manner.
Sāti is an interesting character. I imagine him asking the legendary Bodhidharma:
_"What is the ultimate meaning of the holy truths of Buddhism?"_
_"Vast emptiness, no holiness," replied Bodhidharma._
_"Who stands here before me?" asked Sāti._
_"Don’t know," said Bodhidharma._
Or something like that:
_"Who are you?"_
_"George Quinn."_
_"This is your name. But who are you?"_
_"Ah, I was born in London, so I'm an Englishman."_
_"You told me the place where you were born as well as your nationality. But who are you?"_
_"Ah, now I see what you're aiming at. I am a psychologist."_
_"It's your job. But who are you?"_
_"I am a human, after all!"_
_"It's your biological species. But who are you?"_
_..._
Keep peeling... 🧅😁 ...and be well... 🙏
Yes, that's an onion with no core! 😄
Any extreme, dualistic or absolute view of self would be wrong view (in the relative world of impermanence/time-space). Sustaining wise attention to our experience of existential suffering generates the right view & intention to go beyond suffering by ending ignorance and attachments to five aggregates, including vijñāna (Pali term for consciousness). Thank you.
Thanks Susmita! 🙏
very well said, thank you!
Thank you for this most helpful teaching on the self/no-self/karma/re-birth connections/conundrums. Especially appreciate your concluding view of the four noble truths as useful "attending," skillful means!
You're very welcome regenerist. Yes, the Buddha's teachings are quite deep and useful!
Wow, so deep. Thank you for your enlightening contribution to the collective. Third eye expansion.
Glad you found it helpful MU!
Thank you Mr Doug channel enriching our learning +clearly explanation! Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu! 🙏
You are very welcome!
Nicely put. This part of the Buddhist teaching is the most exciting imho.
Fun stuff! Thanks FW.
Thank you. This video is well presented. What continues is ignorance.
You're very welcome Sarath!
Ad. 8:00
In Neuroscience there is a new framework of Jeff Hawkins. He call it Thousand Brains and states that every cortical column builts it's own complete model of the world but just on a small amount of sensors (for example some eye cells). Columns vote together.
Thalamus is a gateway to neocortex and the way it works also seems to go according to Dhamma. So it is rediscovered in science now.
Yes indeed there is a lot of new brain science that reinforces the Buddha’s view of non-self. 🙏
I may be inaccurate here, but it almost sounds like Buddhas answer to all these self oriented questions is “just don’t think about it.”
Well yes, don’t think about it too much. It conditions egoism.
Good afternoon, Doug! Thank you so much for another fascinating video! I wanted to ask you a question about a matter that I do not understand: When a person reaches nirvana and years later dies, does he absolutely cease to exist? If so, why do many Buddhists claim to communicate with and receive help from the Buddha and other buddhas? Why do they speak of paradises where buddhas live? It gives me the feeling that these ideas seem to affirm the imperishable existence of a self (that of each buddha) that persists after their death and that can participate in the events that occur in our lives.
Thanks for your teachings. I wish you an excellent day.
Yes this is a good question and is one of the differences between earlier and later Buddhism. In early Buddhism the status of an enlightened being who dies is one of the "unanswered questions". They neither exist nor do not exist nor both nor neither.
Thanks for your answer, Doug! That is very interesting!
The Buddha gave the similie of the fire being extinguished. For us who define "fire" NOT as the reaction with the coming-together of combustive material, oxygen and heat but as the "red animated hot tongue" then "fire" ceases to exist from our understanding / concept as soon as there's not enough conditions for us to see it.
What we perceive of the Buddha - in person - is like we perceive / conceptualize "fire". As long as we still use worldly perception and view to regard the Buddha, we would end up with either the Buddha exists / ceases to exist after death.
However, the reality is beyond "naming" in the similar way as if we start to understand that "fire" is not just "fire" but results of things put together.
This question is not correct
Each of your video fill me with joy and is very entertaining
Happy to hear that Don, thanks!
Great explanation. Thank you!. I am glad I found your channel.
Thanks for your comment Value, I'm glad you found the channel too! 😀
Consciousness within the person appears to ebb and flow as each day passes and experience and perspective always changing but what appears most enduring are those associations we have come to know and through right view, action, and mindfullness may become free.
Wonderful. Thank you.
My pleasure!
That is something that must have been taught by Gotama or devised in an early community of his followers in the first 400 years of oral tradition, because it is what is original in all of the Early Buddhist Texts' corpora.
We're all going to know for sure in the end...⚱️
I guess so, though we might not realize it! 😄
i find buddhism deeply interesting and profound.
Yes, me too!
Great video, Doug. Thanks for making this great content for us! I love your channel.
You're very welcome JC, thanks for watching! 🙏
Great! Very instructive!
Glad it was helpful! 🙏
I think that the only reason that people wanted continuation of consciousness is a baked in promise of continuity. I personally believe that the universe is one organism and that upon death ,the constituent parts return to the whole and the consciousness is then presented in a different form, but there is no built in collective memory, and each manifestation is equal to each other just different because on a macro level each individual is in fact a magnification of a small part of the one whole universal form.
Brilliantly put my friend
After some 50 years considering these things, I have pretty much come to the same conclusion as yourself.
Well you could argue that consciousness inherently stems from complexity. Thus, the Universe would have to be the highest form of consciousness.
Never stop teaching! Thank you 🙏!
Well I'll do my best Dosia! 😄
Thanks so much Doug. I was wondering if you could suggest practices or “ skillful actions” in number four in attending to suffering? 🙏🏻
I'm not sure offhand which number four it is (it's been awhile), but one of the primary practices in attending to suffering is just mindfulness meditation! Be mindful of all things, including the suffering or stress or unsatisfactoriness you feel.
@@DougsDharma Thank you so much. I’m very glad you said that. I’ve been intuiting it for some time and it’s good to get the confirmation . I’m really enjoying your videos. I like the way you actually refer to the scriptures ( Sutta) and unwrap them. It’s reassuring. 🙏🏻
Extremely clear and concise explanations geared for a Western-oriented audience. Thank you 🙏🏽
Glad it was helpful Corey!
The meaning of the words 'anātma' or 'anattā' are 'non-self', but some people translate the word 'anattā' as “with no refuge” or “without essence”. I guess they think that Anatta is similar to Anartha (Non-beneficial, No meaning or Unwanted things). So I guess it is better to use 'non-self' and non-significant-self' or non-significant-soul or non-beneficial' words when we describe the word 'Anatta' or 'Anātma'.
Right, though longer definitions become cumbersome so we tend to stick to things that are easier to say, like “non-self”.
@@DougsDharma Yes. the word non-self is not bad. I also use it, but some people in Thailand don't like to use it. So I thought they would agree with something like this: non-consistent-self or non-significant-self'.
I am always curious about rebirth but after viewing your video realises us that atman concept is also cause of suffering. Thank you very much sir...we must avoid taking rebirth
Yes, fear of death is part of suffering!
@@DougsDharma sir, still I am not clear how consciousness continues in another body?
@@veereshnayak3714 According to Mahayana Buddhism, there are eight types of consciousnesses. In addition to the six well-known consciousnesses (i.e. sight, hearing, smell, taste, feelings through touching, thinking, there are also manas (ego), and alayavijnana.
The alayavijnana is sort of a storage of accumulated consciousnesses as I understand according to the Mahayana tradition. It is this consciousness that is carried from lifetime to lifetime. Since our consciousnesses change in accordance with our continued perceptions and conceptions and experiences, the alayavijnana consciousness continuously changes as well. I don't know if the Theravada Buddhist tradition share such view.
Thanks a lot my great teacher, the content of this video for me represents an amazing class. Lots of hugs. Evangelina Cortes.
You're very welcome as always Evangelina!
The Chan buddhists have a term, "wu wei" ...meaning no calculated action or doing no-thing when contemplating unsatisfactory phenomena thus allowing illumined mind take care of itself.
Thanks Mael-Strom!
Wait isn't that taoism
Over the years, I have come to differentiate between the ideas of reincarnation vs rebirth. It is my understanding that many Buddhists believe that we do not "continue" in any way after death. I believe that we do continue in the sense of 'rebirth' (intention) as opposed to reincarnation (same "me,"/different body). As a result, I wonder if it could be an improper view to think, "I am suffering today because of what I did yesterday, yester-year, or in another lifetime." In a sense, what happens to us is the result of cause and effect, but if stress/suffering simply *is,* then, don't "bad things" happen just because... they do? In other words, we only have to die if we've been born. I think there is, as you say, tension, between these ideas as well. So, in the end, all we can control is our reactions to what happens. So, it seems that there is truth in the saying: "There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so." I like your expression, "correct attending." This will be helpful in helping me to remember to not fall prey to thinking that stress/suffering is destiny. Still, it could be destiny (in a good sense) if we are mindful that we feel suffering, but choose, ultimately, not to suffer. 🤔Thank you! This was both fascinating and surprising in the sense that I thought a "secular" Buddhist would have just said, in answer to your presentation's title, "Nothing!" (End of video)😅 Perhaps I'm a secular Buddhist but just don't know it yet... My apologies for "talking" so much.
Wonderful Vivian, no worries about “talking”! Yes as with so many things there are nuances and nuances. There is no permanent, unchanging “self” that receives the benefit of our past actions, but there is a stream of connected states of mind and body that does. So dwelling on “was that really me?” or “will that really be me?” isn’t helpful for the Buddha. Just practice on kindness, calm, compassion right now. That’s all. 🙂
concise explanation :)
Glad it was helpful!
Hi Doug.
I know this is an older video so you might not want to respond to this question. However, I’ll give it a go.
When you talk about the ‘eye consciousness’ and the Buddha statue, what is the cause of the ‘eye conscious’ to arise?
We cannot say that the object of perception exists before the perceiving consciousness apprehends it. I’m talking about the moment of perception. The Himalayas may exist, but they are not an object of perception for me because I am not looking at them. If an object of perception exists prior to my perception of it, then the object is not dependent upon my perception of it. It is not dependently arising.
We cannot say that there is a perceiving consciousness if it has no object of perception. Both the observing consciousness and the object of perception are dependent upon one another. If we assume a perceiving consciousness exists prior to an object of perception, then this would imply that perceiving consciousnesses are self instituting and can ‘exist’ without an object of perception, which seems absurd to me.
So, the third possibility is that the object of perception and the perceiving consciousness arise at the same time. However, this appears to contradict the Buddha’s (and later teachers’) views. If the object of perception and the perceiving consciousness arise at the same time, there is no cause and effect. The perceiving consciousness is not the cause of the perceived object and vice versa. If both arise at the same time then they do so independent of each other.
Do you have any views on this rather confusing issue?
Well in early Buddhism this question isn't answered directly, though "contact" (between external sense base, internal sense base, and consciousness) is analogized in several places as akin to pieces of wood that are rubbed together to produce fire. This suggests that the wood may exist independently of the fire they produce, particularly if we think of consciousness as the "fire" that arises when external and internal sense bases meet.
@@DougsDharma Hi Doug. Thanks for taking the time to respond. I really appreciate it. It's a really interesting conundrum. For every moment of awareness (assuming time 'exists') there appears to be at least 3 components; an object of perception, the perceiving aspect, and then there appears to be another aspect which 'records' the moment of awareness. It's relatively straight forward to conclude that in order to have a perceived object there must be a perceiver. It would be easy if I could accept that there could be a perceiving consciousness which 'precedes' objects of consciousness, but this makes no sense to me. Could this be the 'luminous' mind?
I can't imagine a more meaty (and mouthwatering!) a video than were you to care to expand upon ''the six wrong views that arise when we attend improperly to views of self''. I should not wish to be like poor Sati! His comfortably fuzzy'', ''perennial philos'' ; ''it all comes down to the same ideas'' (when, of course, it most assuredly does not) type view is to be found today in dozens of books and videos, and so I was really shaken when I read Bhikku Bodi's translation of The Buddha's publicly savaging the man. ''Call no man a fool''.(Unless it might save him from the error of ''Sit, Chat, (and especially! ANANDA, when the hell realms gape! Just a suggestion for a channel that could not hardly be a greater gift. This video, combined with Buddhism, Rebirth- A History; and Buddhism, Rebirth -Some Reflections, is the kind of notebook scrawling (yes, I have a designated Dr. Doug notebook!) , talking to myself, pulling books down off the shelf, that makes the juices flow like a college kid and makes me feel young again. I once read the definition of a great sutta, as one that upon completion, demands the meditation pillow! I'm headed there now, and I thank you bhante!
Yes indeed Smitty, Sati's is a meaty sutta. I'll be doing a video on it in particular later this summer ... 🙂
@@DougsDharma I shall certainly look forward to it- thank you!
This was an amazing lecture. Thank you very much. I feel it has already made my life better.
You're very welcome Koilatys, thanks for the comment!
I really like this lecture. It seems to have a lot of answers. I spent quite a bit of time in Thailand and Laos and noted stark differences in western and thai responses to guilt, shame, offences and many other things. For a westerner brought up on Christian morality it is an eye- opener.
This is for me is one of your top lectures, having many practical applications
Thanks Chuck, glad you found it useful!
What are these different responses??
excellent
Thank you! Cheers!
The idea of personhood and relinquishing our personal voice into that of the collective with the knowledge that it will be taken up by another in the future that will stand in our place brandishing the idea in their hand like an every evolving cultural comment.
The idea from the Buddha reflected in early Buddhist teachings is not that we relinquish selfhood into a collective but rather that whatever we consider it is not our self. That includes the larger collective or even the whole universe (a/k/a Brahman).
@@DougsDharma Thanks, I was just voicing my own view and not that of Buddism per se. But fair play.
If we as ourselves are made of energy or matter, then consider the following:
If energy cannot be created nor destroyed then energy or matter has always existed in some form ever since the beginning of the universe or before it. In physics these terms can be used interchangeably.
This is a law in thermal dynamics.
Since we are made of energy and matter and energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed, then that leads me to believe that none of our lives on this earth or any other form of life on earth ever really truly ends or dies. impermanent death, if all things or situations are impermanent. We just continuously change, Into one form of matter or energy or otherwise we become something for someone else or something else.
Good work Doug
🙏
I had always thought in terms of a "stream of consciousness," one moment of consciousness segues into the next moment, but the aggregate organism notices no change in its self until a large number of successions has occurred. This stream holds the fruit of kamma.
But now I'm thinking about the words I use and the words Sati used, and it worries me. Is my perception of a stream of consciousness essentially the same as Sati's perception of an individual consciousness?
A stream of consciousness implies that there is nothing within the stream that continues. It’s only one moment of consciousness that is more or less replaced by another, different moment of consciousness. As such this would be different from Sati’s understanding which is that it’s the same consciousness throughout. 🙂
Doug's Secular Dharma I see. Thank you for the clarification!
@@danegraeme991 we can't see the hour hand moving on our watch at a mere glance. we have to look back from time to time to see the change, unless of course we focus our attention carefully. It is possible to look at other aggregates in addition to consciousness too, they also function in the same pattern, stream of form or physical body for instance. all conditioned things have dependent origination.
A stream of consciouness is in another word a stream of thoughts. Thoughts come and go, neither they are the same nor totally different. The last thought at verge of death is immediately followed by thought of rebirth. In scientific term thoughts are electromagnetic energy or microwaves which can be demonstrated by EEG as beta waves. Essentially they are electrons in a stream, just like in electric current. Thoughts can be transmitted from one source to another, there is no time and space barrier for thoughts. Just need a receiver to manifest transmitted thoughts like in radio or TV. They are microwaves. Thoughts make us who we are, our ideas, our inventions, our goodness or evil. Thoughts never die, just go domant when we are in deep sleep and returns once we are awake. Thoughts rule the world, rule the universe. Thoughts only die when we attain Nibanna.
Penso alguna vez traducir al español? En idioma español hay muy poca informacion. Y el traductor de subtitulos es enormemente impreciso y demasiado rapido para temas que requieren mucha atencion. Gracias por sus videos.
I think the problem is the way people are brought up in terms of harnessing the ego. There should be a delineation made between being able to experience and enjoy the life cycle and on the other hand being a progenitor of original thought. Very few people fall into the latter category if at all. But egoistically we puppets with pass me down thoughts assume the right of rebirth and the right to some sort of remembrance of our ill formed manifestations along the way.
Doug,thank you for your great effort to explain this difficult reconcilation karma and non self...my views are karma doctrine goes hand in hand with the path to Awakening and act as a skillful mean to kick start the process with explaination of non self to knit in later..I maybe wrong.
The of what continues on must be taken on in two ways. There is an answer for secularism which differs from those who ask what continues on after death. Both answers are made clear in the Abhidhamma texts.
Towards the end, it was said that we can feel better about ourselves because we wouldn’t be the same person we were yesterday that did anything, but if we did anything good, that would not be us either, to that I would have to ask what’s the incentive? What’s the point of anything if it’s going to cease to be me?
A very similar line of argument occurs from Hume to Kant. From what you say about the Buddha, Doug, Hume held very similar views - perceptions are concatenations, or "bundles" with no underlying logic or metaphysics. Kant woke from his "dogmatic slumbers" to respond with the Critique of Pure Reason and a transcendental structure of cognition. Even so, Kant didn't seem to rediscover the self, there was a realm about which we cannot speak (which echoes forward to early Wittgenstein) - the noumenal world (the world outside Plato's cave). In other words, its not to say there is an enduring self or soul (or that there isn't); its simply that which about we cannot speak, given our embodied being-in-the-world.
That said, how can the idea that we should relax about ourselves because of temporal discontinuity fit with karmic concretion and the idea of being responsible for how we were, how we are and how we will be?
The Buddha’s view so far as I can see it was closest to Hume’s when it comes to the self. All there are are the five aggregates, mental and physical states causally conditioning one another. For the Buddha this causal conditioning was partially karmic. There is no concrete “we” to be responsible for, but there is a karmically conditioned stream of ever-changing aggregates.
All this seems to be very similar to what Cathars and Free Spirit Brethren held :) Also, big parallels with "A Course in Miracles".
This might be taken as a controversial point, but with the great attention given to transexualism in the West in recent years, I often find myself wondering if people who are suffering body dysmorphia could benefit from a Buddhist inspired view of the (non) self. It seems to me that this condition is very dependent on believing there is a core identity that is an essential and permanent feature of their mind, and the body must be modified to accommodate it. But non self teaching would contradict that key part of their self understanding.
I guess one could say the same about depression, which at it's worst has sufferers believing things will never change. I presume there has been psychotherapy with Buddhist influence, but I haven't read about it.
I also believe that it is the case that true deep depression simply doesn't respond to psychotherapy of any kind. I guess, going back to body dysmorphia, the question whether it can respond to psychotherapy, too....
Thoughts, anyone?
Buddhism has been influential among contemporary therapists, though exactly what changes it has brought about I'm not sure.
To end suffering, think correctly and follow path laid out by Buddha. Your thoughts are very good. Keep it up. The self is like the river, transient. Thus, there is no unchanging identity or self. Currently, as a society, we are in the process collectively trying to sort this out. To end our collective suffering, we will need to think correctly and follow the path.
Well, i see in this way: what we call "me" is just memories, experiences, things that depends upon our physiology, when we die, this is over. But our actions have consequences, and those consequences, this karma, will continue to go on. I see karma as a impersonal mechanism that allow things and life to manifest itself. So, when this body dies, another life may come, as a consequence of this karma that generated this life that i call "mine", and added with the karma that this life that i call "mine" generated. This next life is not "me", but it have a relation with the karma that "i" generated. Is nothing personal, there is no relation of identity between those lives. There is no "re-born" because there is no one that have been born at all, at the first place. There is no "re-incarnation", because there was no "incarnation" at the first place. What we call ourselves is just some process of the universe, absolutely impersonal processes, and karma is just the mechanism that allow that to happen. This is how i see this topic. If someone have some thoughts on it, i would love to hear it!
Sure JC, that kind of approach makes a lot of sense. I've heard the Buddhist scholar Andy Olendzki suggest something very similar.
@@DougsDharma Thanks for telling me that, i will look up his work!
JC, if you believe what you posted here, then what do you think happens to you when you die?
I love this topic because I do believe it is something people tend to get hung up on. You need only ask yourself what is reborn and this gets much easier.
The second thing is to realize that whether you believe in rebirth or not will not effect whether or not you are reborn.
The third thing I like to mention is to not worry about karma from one life to another. Look at karma in your daily life. Have you ever known someone that always has something bad that isn't their fault happening to them? Have you ever known someone that never seems to have anything bad happen to them? Asking yourself why provides many insights.
Exactly so Steve, thanks.
There's other ways to look at it besides rebirth. I myself look at it like they do in Analytical Idealism.
The believing in it part is very spot on.
Past and future are illusions, because we cannot possibly realize all the circumstance at that moment, from where we are at this moment.
Perception of "I" and "You" exist till perceptions exist..When perceptions cease then perception of I and You cease..
Thats I understood
What about the Boddhisatva idea coming back to help others? The instructions from the Tibetan book of the death? How to practically integrate these two in daily life?
Attending improperly; my solution is to label information as “not interesting” Anywhere ‘not interesting’ can be found in old texts as a new type of translation?
Example ‘death point’ information or information about next ‘most likely life’ I label not interesting although I have some knowledge.
Intrinsically not interesting, not because it is x years away.
I"m not sure that concepts about future lives can easily be integrated into a daily life practice. They are more for speculation. If it helps your practice to take a vow that involves future lifetimes, then by all means do so.
@@DougsDharma A vow is part mindset, expectation even planning and that can include future life, like bodisatva.
I am unusual that I have awareness of parts of previous lives mostly derived from other people.
There is the story of a recognised boy that got the exercise to ‘meditate’ on previous lives.
He came up with “layperson” and a precise description of him. When he later saw a painting of King Trisong Deutsen it was the description he made, it was still how could he be a dharma king?
In the biography of this lama there is more than one page about previous reincarnations.
I make a distinction between a real incarnation (sort of direct lineage) and transmitted energies. Both energies make other people recognise a person.
So one person can be recognised as several different people who lived at the same time by different people.
The title should read "Does anything continue", because, as stated, it invites the repeat of Sati's error...
And then the answer would be very short: "No."
Meaning, in terms of absolute truth, there is no "self" at all. The "self" exists only in terms of relative truth, similar to how God or Superman or Unicorn exist.
--
The understanding that kamma means "do good now and get good results in the future, do bad now and get bad results in the future" - this is understanding of a run-of-the-mill common person. Nothing to do with Dhamma.
In fact, and due to the Law of Idappaccayata, kamma is lightning fast. Kamma is a cause; if there is a cause there must be a result right there and then; if there is a cause *now* , but the result is in future, then that cause is not the cause of that result.
A simple simile: a hammer hitting a piece of hot iron results in an immediate change to the piece - the blacksmith doesn't have to wait any amount of time to see the result of his act. Kamma works in exactly the same way.
Also, the real difference the Buddha made in the understanding of kamma is his introduction of the 3rd type of kamma: so alongside the traditional "good and bad" kamma, there is "kamma that brings an end to both good and bad kamma". This is exactly what the famous mantra "Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha" points to: going beyond good, going beyond bad, going beyond all dualities, that's where Bodhi is.
----
The final question: if there is *No* (inherently existing) *Self* , then what am "I"?
This question is answered in the Fifth Daily Remembrance. I'll save you a Google search: it's Kamma.
Alan watts also had a very good understanding of buddhism
I haven't read his writings, maybe someday!
This seems so utterly complicated to work out, that it doesnt really lead to the end of suffering, rather the beginning of complete and total confusion. Each way you move seems infused with such doubt as to render the move not worth making. Im starting to think that dropping everything is the only way to be free. I notice that some Buddhists just repeat the Buddhas words like robots, not really wanting to investigate if its actually true, but using it as a shield to hide behind massive doubt. Anyway interesting video.
Thanks for your thoughts Video Master. The basic idea is that getting into thoughts of personal identity are not worth the effort. Better to focus on other things, like dealing with suffering. 🙂
Yes that seems a positive way. I suppose what I am trying to get at, is all this speculation is fine, but unless we can experience any of these truths in person - its no more use than reading a menu in a restaurant. Keep up the good work! @@DougsDharma
Thanks Video Master. For sure, intellectual understanding is only the tip of the iceberg. We have to practice and see it for ourselves. 🙏
Rambling, but good; thank you.
Thanks trivas7, glad you found it worthwhile.
Assumption there is a fixed thing that continue ! Is there ? Or is there a series of connection of continuity .
There is only causal connection, no fixed thing in Buddhism.
Can u make more explanation ..with more examples
I’ve got a number of videos on this general subject, see my playlist on self and non-self.
I'm questioning what is the right view of self-nonself. Would it be just "I am", or "am".?
Well if we follow the Buddha, he really didn't choose different language. He used ordinary language but just understood that in this case it was a form of speech that didn't really indicate anything solid and unchanging.
Thoughts on the present moment or now: It is the indefinite, constant, continued progress of existence known as human life or the perception and perspective thereof. Given a number of reports and researches either from online sources or otherwise most scientists would agree that our perspective of time or the present moment or now is greatly inhibited, by the fact that it takes our brains a few milliseconds to perceive the present moment or whatever is going on in the present moment either inside stimuli or exterior stimuli.
Therefore if it is taking our brains a number of milliseconds to perceive the present moment then there is no such thing as the present moment or what is to be considered as now.
Based on all of this we are constantly in a state of what is the past or a memory of what is the present.
I'm quite exhausted of hearing this overly expressed notion of be present or be in the moment that seems to be so prominent and prevalent just about anywhere I go.
I could also say how my time of now or present is different from your time of now present.
time is of course relative.
Yes it is true that we all think of different elements or phases of the past,
that does not necessarily mean that we are ruminating/worrying about it, sometimes we are reflecting or otherwise remembering what the past was.
It is also true that we all think of the future in different ways different elements or different phases or the different dynamics that may play out. However this does not necessarily mean that we are always worrying about the future or what may take place. It could mean that we are trying to set and achieve a goal or set a certain plan intention or motive et cetera.
the past leads to what is in the present, the present leads to what is in the future. they are all interdependent
sources:
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/there-is-no-now/
www.forbes.com/sites/fernandezelizabeth/2019/11/10/are-the-past-and-future-real-the-physics-and-philosophy-of-time/?sh=29f29f1d4905
orbitermag.com/no-such-thing-as-now/
Yes I've done a couple of videos on that topic:
What is the Present Moment? ua-cam.com/video/ABQZpxOTqsg/v-deo.html
Meditation: Focus on the Present Moment in Early Buddhist Practice -- ua-cam.com/video/z4t-VUhNSkQ/v-deo.html
thanks1 @@DougsDharma
buddha stopped believing in rebirth as he matured as a teacher. He believed in past life and future life, not past birth and future births. Buddha may have believed in collective arising (sam-udaya) and not past birth or next birth of individual because buddha clearly taught that there is no individual consciousness or eternal inner self to be reborn. So individuals are not born individually but collectively through recycling of the individual with the collective.
Poor sutti. He wasn't a fool, just mistaken :( Buddha was so harsh
He was fool because it would effect Buddha's teaching if Sati would spread his wrong view and misguide others mistakenly
There are research and evidence found by Ian Stevenson on rebirth.
If there is no soul, no god just your causal body, as Buddha says, what incarnates? I once come up with a way to explain re-incarnation to an Atheist; 'Re-occurence of Personalities' but even then if re-incarnation is true you will lose your consciousness just like an Athiest; whether the sun goes run the earth or the earth goes round the sun, the experience is the same. Only Maitatreya seems to keep the link, oh sorry that hasn't happened yet.
What is the difference between thoughts and consciousness?Is thought a component of consciousness?
Consciousness is the awareness of thoughts. It's also the awareness of other sensations.
@@DougsDharma If consciousness is the awareness of thoughts and of other sensations Being in a conscious state of mind, which most of us are in most of the time, can be regarded as citta nupassana, the meditation practice on thoughts that is one of the four methods of vipassana practice?
@Tin Htut to end suffering, think correctly, and follow the path. You are now focused on others' words and their varied definitions and connotations.
If the ego is false and it dissolves at death, then what reincarnates?
I have a video on that topic: ua-cam.com/video/xjlBobj0iSA/v-deo.html
I wonder if different schools of Buddhism have different ideas about "what continues" and whether or not there is rebirth? I watched some fairly recent You Tube videos with the Dalai Lama on the "nature of consciousness." I got the impression that he believes there is some kind of consciousness that does continue beyond physical death. He has also investigated children who claim to be reincarnated and seems fairly convinced it is possible. So maybe Tibetan Buddhists have a different view than the one described here?
Tibetan Buddhists agree on these basics. Consciousness does not continue because each state of consciousness is only momentary.
@@DougsDharma Thanks, Doug. I am not a Buddhist, so I probably did not understand what the Dalai Lama was trying to say. I remember it confused the neuroscientists that he was talking with also. You might want to view the videos -- it was a fairly recent conference called The Nature of Consciousness.
Thank you, going to bookmark this one. Interesting set of mis-attendings in relation how people see could cognize each other.
Self as mere passing label to refer to close also passing proximity is not logical distortion. Self as a thing is a logical fallacy- nope it changes. . Thinking maybe the most accurate to see others as passing arisings through space that may pretend to be permanent , and suffer when they do. Much a mountain out of a mole hill..
That's right optizap, we do tend to make seemingly permanent mountains out of passing molehills all too often. 😄
Thank you interesting indeed but the point remains unsolved if reincarnation is assumed to be truth what is that essence that continues if it is not the self , not consciousness what is it then?
While I set aside questions of literal rebirth (my own path is secular), on a traditional understanding there is nothing that literally continues from moment to moment, even within a given lifetime.
Thank you so much for sharing all these video lectures. I founded particularly reveling the one about Non-self. Personally I believe that perhaps this elusive matter is better approached from the experience of meditation
Buddhism is not a philosophy. so it takes proper questions which are conducive to the practice. 100% Practical.
It seems to me a practical, ethical philosophy. I did a separate video on an article I wrote with a colleague awhile back: ua-cam.com/video/PUr-X8Q-HcY/v-deo.html
Buddha said "current Karma defines what will happen in the future, past Karma defines current situation, no one can avoid Karma"
Buddha could not avoid karma too.
if you do good thing, good future may happen BUT do NOT expect is Buddish way
if any expectation, occurs in your mind, now you are NOT training well as Buddish way
To understand the Mind work, you have to wake up Sathi by doing mediation as budish monks do. when you understand what happen, you won't have any doubt.
learning by doing = right way of buddish
That's right, attend to your current actions and don't spend time worrying about the past or future: ua-cam.com/video/z4t-VUhNSkQ/v-deo.html . Easier said than done! 😄
What about to think about our future or past is only illusion. The idea of self relates to becoming in this illusion.
Yes it relates to identifying with things in the past or future as "Who I really was/am/will be." But since all things are always changing, this is only true in a manner of speaking.
Time is not real, past and future are conditioned by desire
That's funny the way Buddha addresses "Foolish man!" when someone misinterprets his teaching
Yes, I believe it's always a monk he's talking to that way, one who will have heard the teaching many times before.
If individual momentary consciousness arise and fall with no underlying string binding them together then how do we justify the effect of karma? It's not me, it won't be me after I die, so who cares? Why should one care?
Well for the Buddha it's neither correct to say that it's exactly the same person later on, nor that it's exactly not the same person later on. The way to understand it is as a causal process following dependent origination. This is the process that secures whatever continuation we have during this very life. As for future lives, I leave that speculation aside as a secular practitioner.
@@DougsDharma We can side-step the metaphysical implications just fine. Even from a secular perspective, that dependent origination is devoid at its core from a person who harvests the good and suffers the bad. Once you get rid of that persistent illusion, what motive is there for a moral life? There's nobody there really to care. Nobody there to suffer.
That this issue is so controversial in Buddhism is not new. It goes back to very early days. I think the Pali canon just reflects that controversy. In some discourses, the Buddha is recorded as expressing what were in contemporary terms, very conventional sounding views to the effect that the individual builds karma and that individual is reborn according to that karma in a linear and traceable causality. In other discourses he seems to doubt this. Famously however he said that whether or not a tatagatha is reborn is too abstruse a question to be worth answering.
These inconsistencies have been explained away as being a case of, in a culture where rebirth was a core belief, the Buddha was talking to audiences with different levels of insight.
I suspect it’s also very likely that the Pali Canon is heavily influenced by the established doctrine of the times in which it was written down. Imagine the Catholic Church stating there is no heaven and hell.
So IMO the better approach is to work out what really follows from the core teaching and to relegate whatever is inconsistent with that.
If the basic questions of Buddhism are what is suffering and how is it ended, then a key issue is why, if there is a resolution, does it persist not only almost everywhere we look, but has such historical continuity. To me, this is a question about both history and prophesy.
IMO the answer the Buddha gives is karma. Our actions in pursuit of craving and aversion have the effect of a pebble tossed into a pond. If we as individual bodies are the water, the wave energy passes through us and we repeat it’s form. The wave takes its form in the individual but as is a well known, it is an illusion that the water moves forward and in the same way it is it is wrong to think that anything about the physical body of the individual is reborn. It is the energising pattern of consciousness that is repeated in each new person.
This then is for its time a profound observation about the long wavelength of culture and the short wavelength of such collective energies as wars and Twitter storms.
Because the deep question is how does the human child become inculturated, it easily translates to a discussion about rebirth and to me this is where it is easy for a difficult insight to be rendered in a simplistic manner.
I think this is reflected in the notion of the Bodhisattva. Although a complex idea, a key feature is that there can’t really be liberation until all beings are liberated. The karmic energy of the mass of humans means that individual liberation is a unsatisfying result. It leaves unanswered the challenges of compassion and as we know, the Buddha chose to teach, not to hide away.
Thanks for your thoughts Austin. To be clear, while these matters have provoked controversy and confusion over the years, I don't think the Buddha thought of them as at all inconsistent. To him, the mechanism of kammic rebirth, explained in the chain of dependent origination, was fully consistent with nonself. That broke down however at awakening which is why he saw no possible answer to the questions as to what happened to the Tathāgata after parinibbāna. 🙏
To me the question is more whether the discourses that are attributed to the Buddha stand the test of logical consistency. So I think there are inconsistencies for example between dependent origination as explained in the Ancient City SN 56:11, which supports, if I understood you, your account of moment to moment change in the individual mind, and the account of Why Beings Fare as they do After Death MN 41 which is a more full on in its mythological framework of reference. I am sorry to any You Tubers about quoting references. I usually try and avoid that.
Yes, there is a tension between a moment-to-moment understanding of dependent origination and rebirth over lifetimes. I myself don't believe that rebirth occurs over lifetimes. But I don't see any logical inconsistency there, and don't see that the framework found in SN 12.65 the Ancient City (SN 56.11 is the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta) is inconsistent with conventional Buddhist understandings of rebirth. What we have there is a cryptic claim about consciousness and nāmarūpa that could be interpreted in various ways, and given the mass of conflicting claims in the canon it would be particularly tendentious I think to interpret that claim as saying that there was no consciousness prior to this lifetime. It is more likely saying something like that consciousness disappears with nāmarūpa just as it appeared with it in this lifetime. We have a fuller account of this mutual causation between consciousness and namarūpa in the Mahānidāna Sutta (DN 15) that explicitly discusses the (supposed) mechanism for rebirth. For more on this general subject see my video on dependent origination: ua-cam.com/video/A2cDhGVgb9A/v-deo.html 🙂
The inconsistency to me is that dependent origination explains suffering in the context of the now accepted mechanisms of the brain and the brain’s place in and contact with the environment whereas there is a mechanism gap when it is referred to in support of the transmission of karma into another life. I think DN15 is pretty ambiguous when it describes this and obviously you don’t find that convincing either. I am not sure what consciousness entering the mother’s womb refers to. It could mean simply intercourse as a volitional act carried out in the pursuit of desire. Or it could mean some kind of transfer of the soul which would be an idea from a different school. But the whole discussion seems to have been a hot topic amongst kings and ascetics: see DN2. And this mechanism gap is surely where modern Buddhism loses credibility for the spiritual
purposes that most westerners look to it to solve . But as I say in my main post above, it all makes perfectly good sense if you abandon the attempt to use karma as a distributor of social justice. If however you are a king and you want to promote a religion that promotes morality and social order, then you do want karma to be a doctrine of justice and retribution. Which to me is the tension between the Buddha as radical existential philosopher and the Buddha as a pillar of the social order. Thanks 🙏
Yes indeed, thanks. FWIW consciousness entering the womb cannot be taken as a transfer of the soul, that's Sāti's mistake in MN 38. It is supposed to be a kind of causal conditioning, by the last moment of consciousness in the prior life conditioning the first moment in the next life, which transfers kammic results. That's the story anyway. Neither of us find it convincing, but at least I don't think it involves any logical contradiction.
If the self is impermanent, then what is reincarnating? Why is it even called reincarnating? If it is not us now that is reincarnating?
I have a number of videos on this topic in a playlist that might interest you. The last video deals with traditional notions of rebirth: Self and Non-self in Buddhism
ua-cam.com/play/PL0akoU_OszRjA9n0-U24ZCpfEQVFxeGz2.html
How do you think the buddha would feel if we could show him microbiology and how we are billions of specialised single celled organisms that are born and die over time and working together to make our what we call our bodies
Interesting question Ryan. I imagine he would not find it entirely surprising. He did, after all, consider the body to be made up of a mixture of four elements that run through us at all times.
Buddha went subtler than that through stillness of the mind, cant even imagine the level of focus beyond time and form
Another great explanation of a very difficult topic. Thanks!
I get an impression that a significant proportion of the benefit to be derived from considering these tough puzzles is in the value of the puzzle itself. That is, the apparent illogicality of stating that there is not a self and there is not no-self causes a short-circuit in our thinking that forces us into deeper consideration than we might have done otherwise. Would you agree with that?
Yes I think there may be something to that Stephen, but unlike in Zen the Buddha wasn’t really into paradoxes. That said, he was definitely into nuance and was particularly concerned that people not get to extremes with ideas of the self.
Buddhism is secular the problem is that the discourses are misconstrued
I am born Buddhist and devout guided by parents most likely without any conviction.
Recently I discovered Paticcasmuppada Suta and is described as a progression. Something that has universal applications beyond theological aspects and is dialectical
Well they certainly can be given a secular interpretation, which captures the essence of the practice.
About 10.02 timestamp, it is expressed ".....Buddha's analysis of consciousness into these six kinds and his claim that one of them and another of them basically a substitute over over time with each other so there isn't a single thing.." It seems like Buddha is promoting the same anology of '5 blind men's expression of elephant'. How can one get inspired to such a concept unless one has a strong obsession of presenting something quite averse to the ancient philosophy?
And further at 12.41 " ......we tend to cling to the idea of wanting more sensual desires because we think it's the same central desire in the future it'll be the same us in some ultimate sense in the future and so we have to you know we have to cling to that in order to retain it or it tends to make us want to be reborn because we think .." once it is proclaimed that there is nothing like continued existence of the same consciousness, what is this "we" or "the same us" and who is this that "clings"?
I’m not sure what you mean by the ancient philosophy. The Buddha’s philosophy was quite ancient! 🙂
As to your question, the “we” is a conceptual construct out of the ever changing experience of the five aggregates.
@@DougsDharma Ancient In context of Buddha, is Hindu philosophy of Vedanta
While the Vedas predate the Buddha, the Upanishads were roughly contemporaneous. The earliest ones were composed perhaps a century or two before him, but most post dated the Buddha’s lifetime. As for other materials, they long postdate him: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta
@@DougsDharma Well, I have no agenda to prove the fluctuating state of 'wiki'. Enough would be to agree that no one can disregard the incubation and influence of early age philosophical environment.
it is ignorance that clings
What of us continues is not Self
🙏
Than what ?
@@TheShuryansh it is a state
I'm still confused. What is it that reincarnates?
There is no "thing" that is reborn, at least on a traditional understanding, just as there is no "thing" that persists from moment to moment in this lifetime. All is in a constant state of change: all there is therefore is causal interactions between changing things.
@@DougsDharma First of all, thanks for replying.
I'm grasping at some understanding, I was already partial to the idea of karma and reincarnation not being literal, but then how does the non-existence of anything persistent allow for rebirth? What makes Dalai Lama the 'reborn' Dalai Lama, or the Karmapa the 'consciously incarnated' Karmapa?
If there's nothing persistent then what's the point of escaping rebirth, what's the point of Nibbana?
This feels a little like the concept of Trinity in Christianity.
This reminded me of the avacya (inexpressible self) that I came across on the wikipedia site about Buddhism and from this video I understood that the idea of inexpressible self was not taught by the Buddha but maybe a later development after the Buddha
I'm not familiar with that concept, so I suppose it probably is a later development.
Let's say something angers you. He cut you off in traffic. Does it not allay the suffering to switch to the thinking of anatta? He is not different at this moment from me, myself. We are both things of dependent origination in the moment. It is hard for me personally to switch from the anger to this abstract notion. But even the effort seems to me to be salubrious. It is perhaps the essential way that my Buddhist belief contributes to equanimity in my life.
Thanks Ben, yes this certainly can be a good practice, and it’s one I’ve heard recommended by a number of contemporary teachers. It’s not a practice one finds in the early tradition however which is something I might do a video on eventually. 🙂
@@DougsDharma I am puzzled by your response. When I look up anatta on Wikipedia I find it is an important concept in the Pali texts. But the explanation there is long and elaborate; perhaps I don't understand it correctly.
Hi Ben, the notion of anatta in the early texts is to understand that nothing in our experience is “I, me, or mine”. In some later traditions that was taken to mean that there was (e.g.) no difference between us and other people, but this was not a technique used in the early texts. I believe this was not used because it might implicitly be taken to expand the scope of “I, me, or mine” to include others and even indeed all of reality. I have a video on non-self that you might want to check out if you haven’t already: ua-cam.com/video/gSZjKKuvHEQ/v-deo.html
My own view on this is heavily influenced by Whitehead’s philosophy of organism where there are series of actual occasions of experience each of which is a successor to it predecessor by virtue of being most influenced by it compared to others. It is the succession of actual occasions that go on. The sense of self is the brain’s representation of itself/biological organism reflected in these actual occasions. Since the brain/biological organism is the thinker of thoughts and receiver of rewards and punishments from prior deeds, we as successions of actual experiences have a sense of being a self or personal agent. Hopefully, this makes sense, at least to someone who is familiar with Whitehead. In any event, it explains why I have trouble with the notion of karmic justice between lives.
Yes, well as a secular practitioner I also leave aside the question of future lives. What matters is this life.
Your analysis and explanation that SaTi conveyed such a string of pearls is rooted in atomism and such a dissection is destructive.
The words 'Foolish man' is a wrong translation. Buddha never said like that. Buddha called him 'Empty man'. Buddha only used the words 'Empty man' to address stupid people. That is the only harsh word the Buddha used.
Well the word typically used in these situations by the Buddha is “moghapurisa”. The Pāli Text Society’s dictionary defines “mogha” as “empty, vain, useless, stupid, foolish”, and “moghapurisa” as “a stupid or dense fellow”. So yes, it does also mean “foolish” or “stupid”.
@@DougsDharma Yes, may be the Pali Society use it like that too, because maybe some other people used that word like that, but the Buddha usually mean it as 'Empty'. I have heard that the meaning of the Pali word 'mogha' is 'Empty'.
Imagine new born same gender fake twins, sharing the very same stimulations of the five skandhas and yet ending up with individual skills, preferences, penchants, psychological profiles etc… Co-dependence is as a limited view to explain consciousness origination as evolution is to demonstrate the emergence of the universe.
Buddhism is the 2nd oldest religion in India after Jainism
Some people claim Buddhism is originated from Hinduism
No No No
Buddhist religion is 2600 year old
And Hindu religion is only 1000 year old
Yes... Vedas are older than Buddhism But you won't find the word Hindu in Vedas
King Ashoka had constructed around 84000 Buddha monasteries in India and other Asian countries like Pakistan Afghanistan Sri Lanka Myanmar Bhutan Nepal Cambodia And these old monasteries clear the doubt
Some of them have been converted into Temples
There was no temple at the time of Bhagwan Buddha
Brahmins used to do Hawan Yagna at the king's palaces
Even though I gave the video a thumbs down for revealing such profound mistakes as true and conveying such wrong views as right. It's still a good video because it teaches the controversy.
SaTi made no mistake in the way the video said, & as the video said, but rather the Buddha & Buddhism as this video explained made the mistake. Yet that seems still so sadly to be the Buddhist way that seems to be to take on Karma in order to teach dharma or rather to teach dharma by embracing karma. Translation empathy has a downside, compassion when true does noT, rather compassion is that word to convey that compassion is the way.
It's amazing how you can talk for 30 mins and don't say anything.
As to the question; "What continues?" obviously the questions, but thaT is not the answer.