Did the Buddha Teach No Self?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 лип 2024
- Did the Buddha teach that there was literally no self? We'll look at that question and see what the Buddha had to say about the claim that there was absolutely no self. We'll also look at his broader picture of the self.
☸️ Free mini-course at the Online Dharma Institute: onlinedharma.org.
🧡 If you find this material useful, check out my Patreon page and get fun benefits like exclusive videos, audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: / dougsseculardharma
🧡 You can also make donations through: paypal.me/dougsdharma
✅Video:
The Buddha's Competitors: Unearthing the Dharma - • The Buddha's Competito...
✅Suttas mentioned:
suttacentral.net/an3.40/en/su...
suttacentral.net/mn2/en/sujato
suttacentral.net/mn22/en/sujato
Facebook: / onlinedharmainstitute
Twitter: / dougsdharma
❤️ Thanks to Patreon Patrons:
Anonymous (1)
Scarlett Farrow
Matthew Smith
Bob Snead
JC
Shantha Wengappuli
Margo
Karma_CAC
Johan Thelander
Michael Roe
Jorge Seguel
Christopher Apostolof
GailJM
Steven Kopp
Brett Merritt
David Bell
T Pham
VCR
Upayadhi
Andi and Erik
ATGuerrero686
Michael Scherrer
Michael Seefeld
khobe schofield
Alex Perdomo
Benji Forsyth
Kaine Usher
Cookie Forthecookie
Blaze Way
Bri
Adam
Carlos Gutierrez
Andrew Posner
Jessica Sauter
Adin
Sonny Flink
#onlinedharmainstitute #buddhism #earlybuddhism #secularbuddhism
Disclaimer: Amazon links are affiliate links where I will earn a very small commission on purchases you make, at no additional cost to you. This goes a tiny way towards defraying the costs of making these videos. Thank you!
✅ Check out this playlist next on self and non self in Buddhism -- ua-cam.com/play/PL0akoU_OszRjA9n0-U24ZCpfEQVFxeGz2.html
🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂
The Buddha implied, that there is no _permanent_ , _unchanging_ self. In philosophy terms, there is no entity, there is only process.
This is the fundamental difference between the Buddha's teaching and other Indian religions.
That's right Bauddh!
And how exactly do you reconcile the NIKAYAS which says otherwise? Check out theoria apohasis on UA-cam, the dude is one of the few in the world who has been translating ancient pali for 20 years, the earliest teachings of the Buddha was not different from Advaita Vedanta.
@@adamq8216 Read the Abhidhamma.
Advaita Vedanta is crypto Mahayana (and there's enough evidence of this).
Mahayana comes from one single Theravada sutta which talks about sunyata.
Nailed it! Without a permanent, unchanging self, processes continue on as they always have.
No he didn't lol. He taught the 5 khandas weren't the self. The self is Nirvana, outside the 5 khandas. It is the eternal, unchanging, permanent consciousness which is never born and never dies. The supreme patriarch of the Thai sangha wrote an entire book on nirvana being the atman in 1939. And every Arahant from Ajahn Mun down to Ajahn Maha Bua teaches this. Only dry scholars with no meditation experience believe there's nothing outside the 5 khandas. How in the world would enlightenment even work without the primordial citta outside the mind and body? That means when you become an Arahant, and pass away, you just disappear forever. Who would ever practice for a goal like this? xD
I was discussing this recently with my partner. It’s a tough concept for me to grasp as a new practicing Buddhist, so thanks for bringing clarification.
Yes it's nuanced and complicated Bo. You're very welcome.
He's wrong of course. Empathy is a fact.
I was kind of confused as well, however I read a lot on the topic, until I found a book that summarizes it pretty well. It's called "No self, No problem" by Chris (Something I don't want to misspell) PhD. To me that book really made me understand the concepts a bit better. And I think it makes sense since we're shaped by our experiences, reason why we tend to think about ourselves as unique (self), and we kind of are, but not in the way many people conceive it.
That's an excellent thumbnail. I tried to wrap my head around the conventional interpretation of "non-self," but realized the self is more of a dotted outline than a bold one, or just nothing at all. If there isn't a self, then how can you be mindful of an in-breath or an out-breath then since they are selfless, and essentially do not exist? Great video.
🙏😊
Wow...this is one of the most helpful and beneficial videos on a very important and controversial topic in buddhism that I have ever seen. And I have surely watched hundreds, if not thousands of videos with buddhism content. Thanks a lot for making this topic much clearer or more understandable for me.
I'm so glad it was helpful to you Markus, thanks for the comment! 🙏
Absolutely agree with you, Mr. Doug. I'm not a native english speaker, but I think the best translation for anatta is "not self". Some sources translate anatta as "non self" as if there should be a mysterious substance beyond "self".
I agree and I’ve always figured this is where “emptiness” comes into play in zen, being that we cannot clearly identify the “soul” or “self” so “empty” we are. Seems like multidimensional possibilities going on within us in my opinion
Yes, you're very welcome!
But look at this way who is looking at it that nothing is permanent that one maybe non changing because to see a temporary state you need a permanent state.
There is so much packed into this video! I had to watch it twice. I think I need to watch it again. Thank you for discussing this topic!
Glad it was helpful! 🙏
This is the clearest and most helpful explanation of anatta I’ve come across. Thank you. Your videos have helped me immensely.
My pleasure Neil, glad it was helpful!
These first two minutes blew my mind. Never thought about it that way.
Great video.
Glad you enjoyed it Elise! 🙏
I love the citations when you briefly mention a sutta. Far too often people don't do this. Thank you for incorporating it into your videos!
Glad you're liking it Scott. I also try to include links to suttas mentioned in the show notes.
@@DougsDharma Thanks!
i agree thats why he is the best teacher , buddha said to not trust a teacher that doesnt let you find things out by yourself too . most people couldnt name a sutta if you asked yet they teach "buddhism" onlline.
there's one word that will uncomplicate every discussion about "self": *temperament*
_In psychology, temperament broadly refers to consistent individual differences in behavior that are biologically based and are relatively independent of learning, system of values and attitudes._
Yes, I’ve done some videos in the past about persistence of such things like personality or temperament. Check my playlist on self and non-self for more.
I’m grateful for your skillful work, Doug.
I found a kind of refuge and relief through Buddhist teachings and practice.
That's great to hear John, thanks for your comment!
Your explanations are getting better all the time. Congratulations!
Glad you think so Eduardo! 🙂
Thank you so much for enlightening us!❤️
You are very welcome Samila!
The self is an impermanent construct. However, that does not mean that our and others' actions and suffering are irrelevant
Thanks for this Doug, it’s really helped me understand. My considered view is that there is no transcendent self only the physical processes of the body defined by the interface between the organism and its environment. This is freeing in itself but also very interesting as I meditate and seek to deny the labels I apply to the physical part of me, it’s interface to the non-self environment and that external environment. I’ve been able to, in some small way, perceive things differently. The most impactful when the grass I was meditating on briefly became not-grass maybe I will be able to apply this to myself before I die? That would be very moving.
It's a long practice Rob, but sounds like you're getting some neat insights! Keep at it! 🙏
Extremely helpful. Thank you.
You're very welcome Kevin!
This is so clear and so profound. I have never heard it explained so well.
🙏😊
I pass a cherry tree in full blossom and the sight fills my heart: oh, how beautiful. I keep walking and I leave the tree behind... No clinging appeared, no craving, no Dukkha in relation to the tree - this tree is not mine, it is not me, it is Not (my) Self.
~
I buy a cherry orchard, above mentioned tree included. When I pass by this tree in full bloom the sight still fills my heart: oh how beautiful my tree is! But at the same time I worry: what if it doesn't get enough water? What if it gets too much water? What if caterpillars eat the leaves? What if thieves steal my cherries and break the branches in the process? Oh I must protect my tree. I must prune it. I must pick the cherries... And on and on my worries and thinking and planning and concocting goes.
It is one and the same tree, but in the first example no Self was born, the tree hadn't become me, mine.
And in the second example the tree became me, mine; it became Dukkha.
~~
It is in this way that through clinging and craving we accumulate Self - Dukkha: a car becomes my car - me; other people's ideas become my ideas - me; the books I've read become me, mine; my wife; my children; my body; my cherry trees....
In none of those things, people, ideas, can I find me, they are all empty of me. Yet, through the clinging to them, through craving the pleasing properties I wrongly attribute to them, they all become me, mine; they are my Dukkha.
And when this body & mind inevitably cease one day, what will happen to all these things that make "me"? Will the car disappear? Will the cherry tree stop blossoming? Will the books I've appropriated disappear from the world?
If all that which makes "me" doesn't die with my body & mind, then do I really die? Has it ever actually, really, truly been "me"? I sure wasn't born with any of it, and I sure cannot take any of it anywhere beyond this lifetime.
Can I not renounce all the claims I hold on the trees, books, ideas, people in my life and still remain "me", but now free of all attachments?
~~~
So, this is what is meant by Not Self: the only reason why I believe that all those not-me, not-mine things are in fact me, mine, is my ignorance. Which leads to clinging.
The only thing that truly is "me, mine" is the ignorance.
When I overcome ignorance then what is left?
When all that is Not Me, that is Not (my) Self is let go of, when all the Dukkha is thus let go of, then what is left is the only "true me": Nibbana.
A most enlightening video. Thank you Doug. Sadhu sadhu sadhu🙏🙏🙏
🙏😊
If one were to sit still in a room, becoming completely present, maybe even just watching the breath - where is the "self" then?
Amazing presentation Doug, 10:55 - 11:06 mins said it all.
Thanks Sam, very kind of you to say! 🙏
I think that's the clearest video on the subject I I've seen. If I think of me a year ago it would have been great to see that one. Would it be worth tagging some of your videos as key foundational or something. Is that possible. It wouldn't necessarily have to be permatised
Well, a lot of the "foundational" ones I put in playlists. I'll go ahead later and put this in the playlist on non-self.
Hi Doug, I love your channel and I'm really grateful for all the work and study you put into it.
About 'existing' in the way the Buddha believed we do as outlined in this video: Is there any philosophical argument present in Buddhist texts that attempts to prove that we and others do exist?
Descartes said 'I think therefore I am' and other Western philosophers subsequently pointed out the ways in which this argument was flawed (and others pointed to solipsism or 'the problem of other minds'). Does any Buddhist teacher actually attempt to prove that we actually 'exist' as Descartes tried to, or is it just taken as a given? I imagine this would be a very, very difficult (or impossible) thing to prove.
Thank you!
Well no, the Buddha never tried to "prove" we exist. Indeed one hallmark of the Buddha's approach was that he was not a foundationalist like Descartes. He wasn't interested in trying to construct a foundational theory of knowledge, he was interested in trying to free people from suffering.
I recall reading somewhere - I don't recall where, but perhaps someone else will know the anecdote - that when a Zen roshi was told about Heraclitus' famous declaration, he (the Zen master) said that you can't even step in the same river once. That, I think, adds an additional layer of profundity onto the idea, one of anatta, one of what in that tradition might be called emptiness.
I think it's great and helpful in clarifying the concept that you point out that the doctrine of anatta applies not only to what we typically think of as "ourselves" internally, but in fact to everything in the universe(s). All conditioned phenomena are empty of self - as well as impermanent and unsatisfactory - therefore, why attach to or identify with any of it?
I'm enjoying these videos and the clarity of presentation, thanks.
You're very welcome Rick! 🙏
Been studying Buddhism philosophy for his viewpoint on self done with all scriptures but didn't find a better explanation than this. This video should have came earlier
🙏😊
I like this video a lot I often argued that the only thing that makes people deferent is just our memories and experiences
@@baseline5368 with all do respect mainly because I'm not sure whether or not you're supporting my argument or arguing against it however I will say I do not worship anyone who has it all figured out I worship the one true God and that is my right to do just the same as you don't have the right to tell me whether or not I should believe in a God I don't have the right to tell you that you have to believe in something at one point the Buddha was asked what it's like after you become enlightened and he said well before enlightenment you go out you do your chores you work you eat you go home and you sleep he said after enlightenment you do all the same things literally nothing changes in your day to day life and if you ask me witch you didn't but enlightenment is more about becoming more like an animal and honestly animals are in a natural Buddha state they don't have a single care in the world
I’m reading Jay Garfield’s book ‘Losing ourselves.’ He makes a distinction between the concept of 1) the self (an unchanging soul, atman, etc.), which he argues does not exist; when we think we have selves, we are experiencing a cognitive illusion. And 2) persons, which he argues do exist in the form of socially constructed identities that do change over time.
I am wrong in thinking when you talk about the self as permanent, this matches Garfield’s use of the phrase ‘the self’. And when you talk about the self as impermanent, this matches Garfield’s use of the phrase ‘persons’?
Garfield, so far as I’ve read, refers to Chandrakirti and Hume a lot.
I am also having a dispute with my partner.
Yes, I'd agree with Garfield here in general. Hopefully the dispute with your partner can be resolved! 😊
Thank you!
You're welcome! 😊
Dear Doug, in one of your videos you had talked about "good books about budhism", and thanks to that I bought "in the buddhas words" by bhikkhu bodhi.
And since I really loved it and learned more than expected, now I want to buy another of his books, but I dont know anything about the difference beetwem them.
The ones that right now are available in the website are these:
-The connected discourses of the buddha
- The numérical discourses of the budha.
-the suttanipata
Could you please tell me a little bit about them, and which one you think should I buy next?
Ps. Im sorry for my broken english and for talking about a subject that doesn't have anything to do with the current video.
Well these are translations of the suttas, I'm not sure you need to buy these unless for example you are looking to get a set of the early suttas, in which case you should buy the connected discourses, the numerical discourses, the middle length discourses, and the long discourses (that has a different translator). The Suttanipata is great but that's only one small book. They are also available over at suttacentral online, most translated by Bhikkhu Sujato.
@@DougsDharma thanks for your insight Doug.
I did a quick research in the website and ended up buying the connected discourses and social and polítical harmony.
Best regards.
Buddha’s discovery of the non-self concept is in some sense akin to Einstein’s discovery of the theory of relativity. Because, both these findings are marvelous realities that were brought to light purely by thinking outside the box using common human cognition.
This was the Buddha’s core discovery which he included in his very first presentation to the five ascetics by Annattalakkhana Sutta.
The other core teaching is the path to cease suffering. This is mainly pertinent to mental stream of suffering and not for the physical stream of suffering as the Buddha himself was subject to decay, sickness, etc.,
The source of suffering is the mind. Nobody can cause you suffering. Suffering is due to letting the mind to create stressful thoughts that are explained in book loads. Meditation can help you to be the master of the thought generation process instead of being the slave to the automatic thought process that we developed in our brains for this purpose. We condition our thought generation programs from day one, that we have developed, improved and have it in the brain to cater for day to day affairs. We (our mind) is not an entity (noun) but a verb. We exist when the programs we developed are in execute (running) mode. When we are in deep sleep or in unconscious state we (self) does not exist. Self is a delusion as we feel it only when our thinking programs are in running mode. It’s active in dream state too, but not when we are in deep sleep.
Understanding anatta in real sense helps the task of cessation unhappiness and not letting the brain to fool the absolute reality. If the Buddha was emphasized on preaching only the anatta concept there wouldn’t be a Buddhism today as it is not what people want to hear. Heaven, hell, good, bad, gods, wonder, etc., are what people are attracted to. The Buddha knew it very well.
Thanks for your input Shelton.
@@DougsDharma it’s good to explore various views to bring clarity to this topic. Thanks.
I like the way Thich Nhat Hanh describes non self as interbeing. Nothing is an independent self that stands alone without anything else.
Yes. In fact his approach stems from much later teachings, but it is a good way to think of it.
i think thats a higher step on the ladder/ lesson to break the illussion of an inherent self to the understanding of the law of co-existing called sunyata in Mahayana!
Thank you very much for this video. Once again it really helped me understanding buddhist teachings better.
😄 I think they're Oliver Peoples or something. Can't hardly read the name ...
@@DougsDharma Haha no problem. Thank you! :D
What the Buddha taught was that the five skandhas are not self. First one has to thoroughly understand what is meant by these skandhas, Next one has to observe with heightened awareness the functioning of these skandhas, both separately and as a group (no easy task). Then one has to consider to what extent these skandhas constitute "myself". Apart from the context of this major meditative exercise, I fail to see any profit in discussing whether or not there is a "self".
Well said Uli!
The Buddha taught that, as written in the Dhammapada, the Dharma--Truth--is "free of self". Which I take to mean that a search for Truth must take ego out of the equation. How you FEEL about the Truth has no effect on its reality. In that sense, Self just gets in the way. That is one of my favorite verses in the Dhammapada.
Yes there are so many good verses there, that's a great one.
The way I take this is that, there is no part of our own identity as we perceive it which is really who we are. For example if we think we are British, or funny, or generous, these are all concept's of ourselves which are false and impermanent. It's basically the way I understand ego, because it exactly these things which people use to create an ego, that end up causing problems.
Right. The aspects of ourself that we perceive aren't who we "really are"; they're simply passing phenomena.
I thought that what the Buddha meant is that there was no irreducible "self" but rather that what we typically identify as "self" is the result of the 5 aggregates? Maybe those are the streams you referred to in the video?
When conditions exist where those 5 aggregates can arise, we "exist", and when conditions change, our "self" does not exist for some time.
Given an infinite timeline, this is how I reconcile rebirth and secularism because we have infinite time for the proper conditions to arise over and over again until our aggregates are refined enough to escape the cycle of rebirth.
Yes that's right, the "self" such as it is is a product of the five aggregates, along the lines of dependent origination. (Which is essentially a causal interrelation between the five aggregates).
So we are a self but only a temporary self and that self is more a self of convenience because it already has a name and a backstory and lives among so many others that think of themselves as selves and accept you as a self but we just shouldn't think of ourselves as having any inherent value as death shows all selves that they are just an amalgamation of cells and neurons who are operating under the convenient and preexisting idea of self? But this force in the universe refreshes the perspective of this experience of self into different universal perspectives based on your past actions until you get it right by acting with selfless universal compassion and so very right that you don't have to experience the ups and downs of self ever again and can move on to Nirvana? Is that somewhere in the ballpark?
Well you're getting there. All sentient beings for the Buddha have inherent value in not wanting to suffer, and through that they have ethical value too.
In Hinduism and Advaita Vedanta, they talk about realizing the Self; however, it is my understanding that even within that tradition, thinking that the Self is a permanent, unchanging object is a misconception (that is kinda widespread to be honest). So I think Buddhism and Hinduism are actually pointing to the same thing.
Buddhism is a teaching of wisdom as only wisdom can resolve our problems and fulfill our wishes ....
Practicing Buddhism means correcting our erroneous thoughts and actions in our daily lives.
That's right Sanjay, thanks.
there is no point to anything, we don't do evil things once self realized not because there is a self, but because the illusion of the false self has been seen through in our direct experience.
it is the constructs making up the false self, the ego that generates the thoughts and desires to do evil things in the first place.
Yes, it's our tendency to see ourselves as separate and so to see our benefit as somehow potentially coming at the expense of the benefit of all.
My understanding is that when Buddha talks of self he is referring to the stage of becoming in the links of dependent origination. It is the illusion of self brought on by craving that ultimately leads to dukkah and therefore non self is all that there is when this becoming ceases to arise. I think the reason we can’t talk about it rationally is because the self brought on by ignorance is so incompatible with the liberated self that we can’t share an ontological framework with which to discuss it
Perhaps so AC, though if there is a "liberated self" it's not something the Buddha ever mentions or discusses.
@@DougsDharma so hard to find the right words. I rest my case 😉
I like the way Joseph Goldstein put it “The self is real its just not really real.”
That's a great way to put it Jason, I love Joseph Goldstein.
@@DougsDharma
Hey I have a suggestion for a video. Non dualism. Id love to hear your thoughts on it.
@@JMT34237 Yes that's one I've been working on for awhile. It'll be done eventually ...!
@@DougsDharma looking forward to it!
@@DougsDharma
One thing that Id like you to touch on if you dont mind is some of the claims that are made by non dualists. Like say Rupert Spira and Jim Newman. I feel that Non dualism has some worthwhile wisdom within it (i found Douglas Hardings work helpful for my practice) but some of these teachers make some pretty wild claims about reality.
If you already know what you are going to touch on thats cool. Just wanted to mention it. Thank you. 🙏
Thanks Dough. In 10 fetters, there is "Mana" or often translate as "conceit". Do u think is this equal to "Self" ? 🙏
It's closely related to our ideas of self. Conceit is the "comparing mind". I did a video on the topic recently: ua-cam.com/video/JLKJO97Eihg/v-deo.html
🙏
🙏
Thank you Dough. In your opinion, what is the things that go for "rebirth", is it consciousness? or Gandhabba? Thank you
Well as a secular practitioner I leave aside questions of rebirth as speculative. That said, in the early texts I believe traditionally the gandhabba is taken to be "rebirth consciousness" or the last moment of consciousness in the prior life (or perhaps an intermediate moment of consciousness) that links to the first moment of consciousness in the next life. These are separate moments and separate events but they are said to be causally related.
@@DougsDharma thank you
However, sometime I quite confuse, because I read consciousness cannot stay alone without Nama Rupa. So why the consciousness can go alone as gandhabba to enter the womb. And in one of the sutta, Buddha not agree is the same consciousness that go rebirth, because example like eye consciousness appear when see the object , but will disappear after that. Same as nose , ear , body consciousness , etc. It's mean the consciousness is impermanent. How come the impermanence consciousness that constantly arrising and passing can go for rebirth.
Just raise up my question, is ok if not answered . Thank you anyway
I love your shirt!
Doug's drip 💯
Snatch it🤫
😄Thanks Ziggy!
so in other words there is no intrensic self . seems like buddha knew about fragmentation begfore psycology was created haha buddha really was the first psycologist. its like with emptyness , people think emptyness means that there is no-thing when buddha really meant that things empty of intrensic meaning . same for the self , whoever translated the pali canon and other of buddhas words didnt do a great job haha . ( same with the word suffering i mean who thought that was a good translation haha). GREAT VIDEO doug as usuall you clarify topics in such a calming way , thank you (ps youre the only valid teacher of the dharma that i found on youtube and that i trust ) love from ireland
Thanks my name, very kind of you to say. 🙏
Is there absolutely no intrinsic self?
Impressed and pleased to learn you have a PhD!
Ah yes, I thought I'd include that. Awhile ago now! 🙂
Iam not a big fan of the so called professionals in Western psychiatry. But I have to give Doug credit here. The phD really does help here especially when dealing with translating languages dealing with religions mytholgy anthropology ect. This is also one of the most misunderstood teachings in Buddhism.
❤🙏🏻
🙏🙂
I believe the NO SELF implies that there are no fixed body that we can demand it to do what we (MIND) want. SELF, in Buddhism, is something that is fixed and cannot be altered, modified, or changed. It is the reason why Buddhism focuses on the IMPERMANENCE. One of the teachings I often hear from the Thai monks when referring to Anatta is: If this body is my SELF and it is mine, I should be able to tell it to do as I please - such as: stop growing (Anicam), don't be sick (Dukkam), don't die (Anatta). Also, the teaching of Anicam, Dukkam, Anatta are commonly taught together. Anicam=Impermanence, Dukkham=Discomfort, Anatta=No Self
That's right, you're citing the Buddha's second sermon where he identifies "self" with a perfect locus of control, which we don't have over anything. Thanks!
Is it correct to say that Buddha rejected the speculation on grand metaphysical questions pertaining to self and its place in the universe by doctrine of anatta?
Yes I think that's one way to understand it Abhishek.
Did he reject speculation or ignore it?
The way I understand it (I think). It isn't that there is no self, rather our understanding of it is incorrect. I guess that's why its better to point to non self - as meaning something other than our current incorrect understanding. As stated in the video No self leaves a big black hole in which we get lost and confused. I suppose a rainbow comes together when certain variables are in place. Its not that the rainbow is non existent. In fact it would be justified in saying "I am a rainbow at that moment" But the conditions for its existence are ever changing.
Yes that's right. We ordinarily think of the self as something permanent and unchanging, and that's an illusion.
Neither Self nor Non-Self!
It's inexpressible or inconceivable!
It's neither here nor there;
Neither inside nor outside!
It's within One's body & mind!
Yet it's everywhere and nowhere!
That's one way to express it!
@@DougsDharma
That which expresses it - is neither one nor way !
There is no self, and there is no noself. It always boils down to the concept of existence.
Yes this is one way to look at it. Thanks Leśny.
Perhaps the concept of the nonexistent self is to emphasize that we are made of or consist of non-self elements. It is a practice of humility leading to empathy and an understanding of interdependence.
Right, so long as "no self" isn't taken too far.
Sadhu sadhu
Thank you!
🙏🙂
Sadhu sadhu.. you got the right understanding and said the Buddhad's said.
Buddha never been said " you..we..not exist "..
but said " with the right practicing, you will never exist in this world, future world or in between "
(meaning Paṭiccasamuppādasutta will stop and we will never creating a world any more..)
..
" Never exist " 👈this is the wrong view called " uccheda diṭṭhi "
(..annihilationism..)
Not self or " anattā " only on..
1. Form (Rūpaṁ)
2. Feeling (Vedanā)
3. Perception (saññā )
4. Choices (saṅkhārā)
5. Consciousness (viññāṇaṁ)
👆
There is no other will be
" not self " than these 5 .
There are the suttas which a monk asked Buddha that.. " Not Self, not self what is be not self ? "
then Buddha answered that
" 5 aggregates are Not self "
The one which can't defined as
" self " and " no self " is unconditioned-element (asaṅkhataṁ)
..
or Nibbāna
Buddha said there are 2 main elements
1. Saṅkhata dhātu
conditioned-element
which is 5 aggregates
2. Asaṅkhata dhātu
unconditioned-element
Both are exist
Thanks ASSB!
@@DougsDharma 👍
What if what we really are is more? And what we identify as self is just a random storyline in this universe with all the beliefs and experience collected in a lifetime? Our goal can be to free us from this and be what we really should be. Just random thoughts.
There is no self - nihilist view meaning there is no continuation of life or rebirth after death. The Buddha denied this position because as long as craving and ignorance persists, there will be renewed becoming and rebirth.
Anatta - literally no/ not self which means there is no permanemt or stable basis for what can be considered as a self. What we take as a self is a false idea on the five aggregates that is always changing and influx hence the idea of self is insubstantial and holding on to it is suffering. What the Buddha rejected is the false idea of a self not denying that you exist! You exist but in reality there is no substantial self in this body and mind identified as a self
Instead of declaring there is no self which is to support the nihilist position, he taught the perspective not I not mine and not my self to overcome the idea of self.
Who practices? You take on the more skillful identity of a dhamma practictioner to practice the eighhtfold path to gradually see things as they really are then you are liberated.
That is why the cessation of the five aggregates is in the aggregates itself (Rahula 1958)
You have no choice but to practice (truth of Anatta)
You can be liberated because of Anatta
Thanks for your input Yong Jie An.
the buddha didn't teach anything new he was just rehashing the concept of vedantic self-consciousness, which means to turn away from the objective illusion of individuated psychology/physicality and towards the light of the soul/true self/undisturbed subjectivity. basically he was telling people to stop identifying as the character in the video game and to shut it off so you don't become addicted to hitting 'continue' and being trapped in the cycle of virtual life after virtual life.
The Buddha rejected the notion of a soul, true self, or undisturbed subjectivity. All dharmas are non-self.
If there was no 'self' one could not fight ones defilements or kilesas. Where is this self, in purity of the heart. How does one reach such purity? Through sati and deep Samadhi; according to Ajahn Martin, disciple of Ajahn Maha Bua (Thai Forest tradition of Ajahn Mun). But we in the west tend to not learn this version of the dhamma, instead we tend to be educated via more Mahayana or Tibetan forms of Sunyata (emptiness).
Yes this conventional notion of self is what helps us along the path.
Rangtong Shentong
So ok, the body isn't a self as it changes. The mind can't be myself as its always changing and adapting and I can't fully control. But isn't the self then my awareness? As that's ways been there since my birth? And is the one who notices my thoughts?
Or am I missing the point?
"Awareness" is a different word for "consciousness" in early Buddhism. Consciousness as well is always changing.
@@DougsDharma Suppose it is yeah. Thank you as always for your insights
Yes, All things we have r just a loan while we r still alive.
Very true.
If there is no self, why worry about karma and rebirth?
I did a video on that topic: ua-cam.com/video/xjlBobj0iSA/v-deo.html
No self, no other than self. Understand? If you claim to get it, you're lost. Knowing through not knowing is key and cannot be explained.
😄Very Zen!
This is a challenge of translations. One view about what Buddha could have meant by anatta/ anatman- non existence of 'jeevatma'/'jeeva' which is a subtle (sukshma) existence within the body, mind of each individual (a concept in Hinduism about permanent individual existence incarnating since long before Buddha times) or he could have meant nothing can be defined as self (this or that) . In other words that which can't be pointed is self/bramha/consciousness. In any case, he realized total consciousness and that's why he is Buddha the awakened one.
I think it is more a point on things in the world always being aggregate rather than a primary substance with accidents. The doctrine of soul is motivated to provide some substance which survives the transient material world, discarding those material accidents , but it risks clinging to non-existent and permanent ideas. But we are rooted in the material world, made of material and have material goals, and the material world is always changing. If we cling to ideals which never change, then we experience incongruence and thus suffering. So I don't think the Buddha was teaching to value something like brahman as some kind of World Soul
@@sskpsp the world sole/brahma you are referring to is pure consciousness which is the reality.
@@Ashish-nd3xj yes, that is what I'm referring to. Only Yogacara/Cittamatra Buddhism came close to thinking of consciousness as a fundamental substance of reality or the only reality itself to consider afaik. But early Buddhism and the Buddha only taught that citta, or consciousness, is just another nikaya, or aggregate. Which means it is not fundamental and permanent, but rather conditioned and transient.
@@sskpsp citta is not consciousness. Citta is mindset/mind. Consciousness is beyond mind. Buddha never talked about nirvana/consciousness directly. Only in indications and silence. He understood the need and preached accordingly about the solution on suffering of the human mind first. He knew when that problem is solved, one will be able to see the truth as is.
@@Ashish-nd3xj It is a little confusing because there are 3 terms used for different aspects of the mind as an organ: vijnana, citta, manas. Manas is usually the one translated as mind, though thought is probably better. Vijnana is the discriminatory facility of knowledge, knowing "this is this and that is that." Citta is the abstraction of volitional thought, and is probably closest to meaning consciousness, at least citta-santana ie. the mindstream is, since consciousness is the phenomenon of a thing in the world moving to act towards its own goals.
It is not a substance though, and these various aspects being talked about separately, as well as others like the storehouse consciousness, indicates that mind/consciousness is aggregate, and definitely conditioned since it only appears in animals rather than any object in the world.
The reason I'm speaking against some kind of panpsychism is that many who believe in this like Hindu Vedantavadins cling to that view. If you have ever spoken or heard from someone like this, you may notice they seem to find some ecstasy in believing that there is some fundamental substance behind all reality. Some people even use drugs to achieve this feeling again and again. Nirvana is described as like blowing out the fire of a candle, not imagining the whole world on fire, or wanting to visualize this repeatedly.
The Buddha taught against attachment to any particular view because it doesn't lead to liberation. I don't know if he said anything specifically relevant here, but from SN 22:53:
“If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’”
From what I understood anatta just rejects an empirical personality and shows an impermanent self
Yes, you could put it that way Sonam. There is no *permanent* self.
@@DougsDharma sir self in hindsuim is beyond mind
Things like you and mine vanishes
I always struggled with this teaching 🤣
😄
no self means that the self can not be found in the body in which we occupy.
Right, nor in the mind.
Is identity and self the same in Buddhism?
Well yes, your identity is that which you consider yourself. I think that's generally true. Do you see it differently?
@@DougsDharma That makes sense. I guess because in Psychology, which is my field, who we identify as is just one part of the self. So, please correct me if I'm wrong, if we practice non-attachment especially to our identity--we then experience non-self?
I guess the question becomes what becomes enlightened?
Yes that's one question to ask. Some will say something like "the mind-stream".
this "anaata" concept becomes problematic if we think there's no rebirth.The buddha said that there's no permanent self that moves from this life to the next life. Actually There's no permanent self and there's not no permanent self.the simplest way to understand this is like this. Let's say there's a mango tree in our yard and we pluck a mango from it and plant the seed of it .after a few years, it grows into a big tree.
(1) is the tree that grew from the seed that we planted exactly the same tree that we plucked it from?
the answer is"no". it is totally different from the first tree actually it is not actually the first tree.
(2) just because the second tree is totally different from the original tree and it is not the same , does it mean that the second tree has no connection to the first tree.
the answer to this question is "no" too
Exactly so, all that the self is is a certain series of causally connected mental and physical events.
The buddha taught that we should view the clinging aggrigates as not self. Beyone that the buddha never gave an answer because its irrelevant to the goal
That’s right coffeeman, thanks!
The self simply means collective.
Sure, it could be seen that way.
One question to the buddhist that..
" Why 5 aggregates are not self? "
the answer form the buddhist will be.
" Due to 5 aggregates are impermanent, therefore its not self "
..
But the another question is..
" Why you declare thing that not impermanent is not self?.
..
Are you the permanencet thing? "
..
..
Mr.Doug... how are you going to answer this ? Thanks
Ha! It's only the aggregates that make declarations, and they are ever-changing.
@@DougsDharma ..Yes, But why thing that ever-changing is " not self "?
...
Can ever-changing is " our self"?
Are we the ever-changing..?
There is Sutta which Buddha's said..
" If you have underlying tendencies of clinging in 5 aggregates, if 5 aggregate(body&mind) died, you will considered die following them "
..
" If no underlying tendencies of clinging in 5 aggregates, if 5 aggregate(body&mind) died,
you will not considered die following them "
👆
---this meaning Nivana or unconditioned element
I trying to said that
" Pemanent-thing cling to Impermanent-thing.
Therefore, anything that impemant is not self "
" the unconditioned-element clinging to 5 aggregates. "
the next question will be " How come unconditioned can cling to other? "
.
the answer is because Avijja ( ignorant )
Note:
Buddha has explained the unconditioned-element slightly deferrent in 2 definitions.
Avalokitesvera Bodhisattva did in the Prajnaparamita Sutra. Sakyamuni Buddha did not.
Well right, it's not an early text from Gotama Sakyamuni.
Yes, it interpret the views from the Buddha that are contradictory, as seen by his disciples... This is a position that has Nagarjuna as its champion... He opens the way of the Mahayana... This is an historical development, the gentleman, doing the video select to leave aside, it seems...
I am afraid that the boundary of what we can know is alway moving, but the unknown is vast... "Innominated is the beginning of the universe, nominated the mother of all beings"... Wrote an interpreter of Lao Tse, what the sage actually wrote is into ideogramatic characters which still can not be rendered by, in my opinion, wise translation... This maybe is what, intentionally or not, is left for us to ponder... This gentleman, Doug, is great in the explanation of early buddhism, even later buddhism. But is questionable if this explanatory approach is really helpfull to reach deep levels of non explanatory truth... Well of course is usefull, and we all must carry our wagon with the horses we have... the ever moving boundary is the only guard against stale scholarly calcification, there is the real discovery of Zen... this boundary is also well rendered with "form is emptyness, emptyness is form" Deep Gassho!
and yes , there is no inherent soul, rather a mind that is always changing caused by perceptions ,memorys etc... neurons chatting...flow...so with anatta buddha was right. mind trys to protect the body and what mind thinks belongs to oneself. Thats nature and survival. But no inherent self in Nama/Rupa
That's right Timmothy, thanks!
Is there absolutely no inherent soul?
@@paragozar i guess to find that out the buddha teached intro-perspectiv view aka meditation. If there is such thing you should find it ...is it in your liver, skin, bones or heart or is it in your mind as an object of mind? In terms of this philosphy, nope, there is no inherent or inmortal soul! In fact it leads to more false claims and suffering(dukkha) aka wrong views.
@@timmothydalton8334 If I say there is, it's not true. If I don't say it, it's true. No other way to talk about something that is everywhere and nowhere.
There is no self as a permanent thing, that is just an irrefutable fact( analogy permanent label peg impermanent holes). Self referential then is only correctly nuanced as mere passing label to a passing local vicinity for functional purposes. Also by not having a deluded notion of a permanent self, people get over themselves and find a more so wholesome spontaneous discipline. Indeed most immoral behavior is based in unskilled selfish ignorant behavior.
That's right optizap, there is no permanent self.
Even if there were self, praise worthiness or blame worthiness, still doesn’t exist. Morality is still flimflam.
Hmmm ... "flimflam" itself is a morally charged term.
@@DougsDharma actually not in the way in which I was using it. I was using it to point to the fact that morality is without objective foundation due to the fact that there is no such thing as a prescriptive moral truth, because no categorical imperatives exist. Because morality is subjective. That an ought may only be logically deduced from an if clause (a subjective goal). I used the term “Flimflam” the same way Dr. Micheal Ruse used it when referring to moral realism as a delusion. In the field of meta ethics a term may only be “morally charged” when it is used in a prescriptive way, I was using it in a purely descriptive manner. I am a philosopher of meta ethics, I could get into some serious detail as to the function and meaning of moral terms and sentences.
Are many or all of you secular Buddhists moral realist or some kind?
How about this?:
The path consists of reductive discrimination that whatever occurs to one’s consciousness is not the self
Thoughts of I and mine are samasaric ideation
The unchanging self is that which is the goal: uncontrived ego
Perhaps so tinwash, I'd say the goal is to get beyond thoughts of self or no-self, and therefore to cease clinging altogether.
The trick is to try and stay in the middle, aye?
I think so!
The problem with scholars (PhD) is they are using their limited intellect/mind to try to decphicer and understand consciousness
I think to an extent that's something we're all trying to do. The only question is where we're getting our information from, and how we're responding to that information.
We all do it. It's erroneous but we enjoy it.
buddha said not self not no self
anyone who says no self is ignornat of the real self which is brahman
I think Buddha was Talking about Non Identification..Rather than Non Self...
Holding onto theories about Self is a fetter
buddha said not self not no self
anyone who says no self is ignornat of the real self which is brahman
If everything is flux how can anything be aware of the flux, what possible point of reference would flux have to be aware if itself through time? Something has to stand out of time and that is the Self.
Why is our body permanent for about 80 years and serves as a vehicle for the consciences which can move to another body? There is an order with relative permanence which holds the body together, but from where the order in the Universe comes from?
What are dakinis made of, what substance? If dakinis can have a non-physical body why not humans having souls made of the same?
The soul (Jiva) creates an incarnated personality, but the soul itself is not permanent but lives and evolves maybe millions of years until it is absorbed into Atma (the Self) sometimes called God-realisation.
The Self is not an object, it is an infinite depth of the Witness, void yet not empty, one with the Absolute.
I'll stick to Advatia Vedanta ❤😊
shiva and ifrit
raud na
Doug, your big problem here is that people like you are still trying to translate "Atman" as the old English word "self".
What is the hindu definition of Atman? What is the English definition of self?
Do these two definitions match? No not at all.
You should instead teach that the closest we can come to an English definition of atman is "the God-/Universe-within". Then teach the problems of "self-centered thinking".
In English the self is what diffentrates you from me - what the buddha call "the conventional-self" and what other hindus call "the lower-self".
In Sanskrit and Pāli the word atman/attan is translated "soul" or "self". It's a very ordinary word.
No self is not a concept therefore it cannot be intellectually understood. In truth there is absolutely no self whatsoever. You are not in control and you cannot find enlightenment. The people that have come to this realization only did so because of their karma. It is paradoxical because language is dualistic so we use pronouns like I me or mine but all that exist that we call me is only a bundle of preconditioned biases and beliefs. That is an illusion so the question is that if there is no self then what is there because it is true that there is no nihilism and the answer to that is beyond what can be described but it can be experienced. Therefore instead of trying to conceptualize what cannot be conceived we should rather practice to come to the experience of no self.
buddha said not self not no self
anyone who says no self is ignornat of the real self which is brahman