The Problem of Personal Continuity and Karma in Early Buddhism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 дек 2020
- Are we the same over time? We'll discuss the Buddha's answer to this question through various false leads that he rejects. We'll also look at the question of karma and the origin of suffering, and how it all relates to traditional notions of rebirth.
☸️ 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 behind-the-scenes videos, audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: / dougsseculardharma
🧡 You can also make donations through: paypal.me/dougsdharma
✅ Video mentioned:
Dependent Origination Playlist -- • Dependent Origination
✅ Suttas mentioned:
suttacentral.net/sn12.17/en/s...
suttacentral.net/sn36.21/en/s...
Facebook: / onlinedharmainstitute
Twitter: / dougsdharma
❤️ Thanks to Patreon Patrons:
Anonymous (1)
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
Ernie
khobe schofield
Abhinav Jalan
Alex Perdomo
Benji Forsyth
Kaine Usher
#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 video next on Buddhism and rebirth, a history -- ruclips.net/video/83ycWNSnjC0/видео.html
🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive behind-the-scenes videos, audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂
Thank you for the great video. I believe in recurrence, meaning that even if my awareness is annihilated when I die, the spark which began my awareness will begin to exist in a baby after my death. So my experience of most basic awareness will recur in a baby after my death. If I say, It occurs to me it's Thursday, the thought that it is Thursday occurs to my awareness like a ball striking a tree. This basic awareness to which thoughts and sensations occur will begin to exist again in a baby after my death. However, I'm not the same thing I was ten years ago, so I don't have to be same thing in the next life that I was in this life. I would simply be enough of the same thing so that my experience of awareness would begin again in the next body. All of consciousness is burning. Fire is fire. After thoughts and sensations have passed, I am flame and nothing more. I would really like to know your opinion of this. Thank you.
The explanation of our selves like a stream that is constantly changing even though it continues to exist recalls the famous quote from the Greek Pres-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus: "You can't step into the same river twice." Great video!
Yes exactly.
Bruh how do you keep consistently cranking out high quality talks on such a regular basis? I love this channel. And no in your face plugs for products either!
Thanks for the kindness Giantcrabz. 🙏
@@DougsDharma
I know you mostly talk about the practicalities of Buddhism rather than the “religious” ideas, but can you do a video talking about Buddhism’s perspectives on deities, demons, and hungry ghosts. And such as the realms they inhabit. And how it really doesn’t matter to Buddhism and they’re not a main concept or thought within Buddhism. And how enlightenment or Nirvana is the ultimate goal
@@DougsDharma
Basically that Buddha never really denied the existence of deities and these other beings but never emphasizes it, because it wasn’t central or relevant in attaining enlightenment or Nirvana. Since many are also confused about Buddhism’s non-theism. And can you talk about Buddhism’s perspective on good and evil. I would love to know more about Buddhism’s perspective on these things
@@shawnhall3849 Yes thanks, I have videos on these topics already. On deities: ruclips.net/video/QOQiZbAPtW4/видео.html , on the three realms: ruclips.net/video/JEwQvlfMUf8/видео.html
@@DougsDharma
Thanks. Did Buddha talk about Reality, that would be an interesting topic of discussion
Hi Doug,
You are the same you always.
Whatever practice procedure you are the same you always.
Whatever doing together with world body mind and thoughts, you are always the same you.
When you enlighten you are just the same you.
Only nondual you with everything.
Real you never change.
As such boy Doug is the same now Doug like.
wow. i love the analogy of the stream that you used, thank you for another amazing video, Doug!
My pleasure Guadalupe! I can't take credit for the analogy, it's an old one. I love it too!
This is very interesting. I love dependent origination but it does leave me wondering about free will and choice. If there is no self, only streams of causes and conditions, where does intent come from? Who chooses to be aware, compassionate, and skillful? Wouldn’t enlightenment then be a passive event outside of any conscious control? Who or what applies correct view, action, and effort?
There are mental states, volitions, that arise and pass. They arise "in the mind", though the mind is just a bundle of these mental states that are closely causally interacting.
I love how you break down different statements into more comprehensible parts. Thank you.
You're very welcome Upulie, glad it was helpful!
Doug, I just watched your Karma playlist. You did an excellent job covering from every angle. Thanks.
Glad you enjoyed it, Dread!
Thank you! This helped a lot.
You're very welcome Brian, glad to hear!
Extraordinary explanation of very difficult concept to grasp for many people. Thank you very much!.
You are very welcome Value!
I'm very glad that I found this channel, thanks for this perspective! You do a wonderful job of simplifying complex concepts that can be foreign to a western upbringing.
You’re very welcome Alex! I’d only say that the Buddhist understanding of the self is quite similar to David Hume’s, so it’s not so very foreign!
@@DougsDharma Yes! And as I have been learning more about Buddhism I find many similarities in Greek philosophy as well that, even if they're from independent development and not idea sharing (i've heard arguments for both), is fascinating. It really brings a whole new perspective to the world.
Brilliantly explained, Doug. 😻
The stream metaphor is very appropriate in my opinion. It also reminds me of Heraclitus' _panta rhei._ 🌊
Furthermore, I suppose dependent origination (as well as the 4 noble truths) are the core of Buddhist philosophy/teaching. Or the foundation - upon which everything else is built.
😊🙏🏻
Thanks so much! 🙏😊
And I agree, the Four Noble Truths and dependent origination are indeed the heart of the teaching. I think in many ways they're essentially the same teaching, it's just that the 4NT only talks about one key aspect of the chain: that between craving and dukkha.
Very enlightening
Thanks Ramakrishna! 🙏
The belief in karmic baggage justifies a permanent underclass. Not only do you suffer in servitude because of your past actions, you must "burn off" the bad karma by servitude, so you cannot even attempt to better your life. I saw this in action in India directly.
Yes this is one very unfortunate result that some people take from the idea of karma.
Hi Doug, as ever appreciate the clarity.
This teaching is challenging and threatening to the core delusion of a fixed identity; which generally gets me out of bed each morning.
Nevertheless Buddha out of compassion attempts, by "holding to nothing whatever", to loosen these fixed views, and when these are loosened undoubtedly the chains that bind our suffering begin to loosen, at least temporarily, offering respite from the sufferings of the rounds of existence.
For me, a contemporary metaphor of what Buddha is alluding to, and can only be alluded to, is summed up by Russel Crowe's character in the film Gladiator, when at the beginning General Maximus Decimus Meridius, is rallying his troops against the Germanic "hordes", cries out, "What we do in life echoes through eternity."
And it seems at least to my current metaphorical understanding (no pun intended) that this echo is not deterministic, rather it is probabilistic based on the flow of emergent conditions, whose outcome beyond physical death are ineffable to the unlightened self-grasping mind, which is unable to see beyond the limits of that self; kind of thing.
But then to paraphrase Buddha, if we can conceive it, it is not it.
Thanks again for your intellectual rigor and honesty; elucidating that which can only truly be apprehended through deep and sustained practice.
May all beings be free from suffering. In-Kind Regards. James
You’re very welcome James, thanks for your thoughts.
That was helpful
Glad to hear it John!
Nice video
Thanks Samyak!
So, as I got it, the self as the cause of our suffering was rejected by Buddha only in the sense of some permanent, persisting through time self, producing karma in the past, and that being what suffering in the now is. My question is, what if we are the cause of our suffering where the self has a different meaning - it is not about any self from the past as that does not indeed exist, but as I noticed we cause ourselves suffering, at least non-physical one, through our PRESENT conditionings which in turn comes from our attachments. In this sense it doesn't have anything to do with our identifications and such which are projections of the mind, but everything to do with personal responsibility for our mental tendencies.
In other words, any negative feeling we give ourselves comes from unsatisfactoriness, but the reality itself is not objectively unsatisfactory, it simply is. Our grasping, our demands for either something we don't have to be, or something we have -to not be, is what causes unsatisfactoriness. So is it really fair to say 'everything is dukkha' when in fact everything just is and if not for our own grasping there would never be dukkha to begin with? In that sense, we do seem to be the cause of our own suffering. Not as a result of karma from the past but our own mostly unconscious emotional tendencies to condition our feelings on external things in the now, and always only now. That is what I noticed when I was trying to observe my suffering.
Well yes, the Second Noble Truth says that suffering (dukkha) arises from craving/grasping. Without craving, there is no suffering. So the Third Noble Truth expresses the possibility that there is a life that is free from suffering, which is one free from craving. And indeed, craving arises from our own causes and conditions, it isn't external to us. But this is all just a flow, a process, without anything permanent, as you noticed when observing your own suffering!
The mind rises and falls away that is why nothing that is explaned stands as a solid person or mind set. But conditions rise and believing in conditions give birth to another conditions. But they are all empthy and have no solidity.
🙏
Aloha there, my new found Buddhist teacher from the west! How is Karma happening? How does it track down sentinel beings? Could there be loopholes for evading Karma in the samsaric system? Is there any connection of karmic continuity to the Akashic Records?
Thanks Osanda, but I'm not sure how to answer your questions.
@@DougsDharma that is cool. I myself don't seem to have answers to most of my problems. I have always been flabbergasted with cosmology and our very own existence. All thanks to your channel, I am re-evaluating my own religion, Buddhism. I also in a way was so fascinated with early Buddhism though I don't consider myself religious. Anyways, will you be able to do more videos Buddhist meditation, Abhidharma and an exclusive video on Buddhism and Quantum physics? Because I've heard a lot of people who are into Quantum physics end up discovering and exploring Buddhism. Namo Buddhaya 🙏🏽
@Ajita Corp I like to engage my mind with intellectual stuff be it philosophy, good music or science. Basically a curious cookie.
@Ajita Corp be or not be. Or all this is simulation. We are a projection of a figment of intellectual beings.
As i understanding it is the experiences that we accumulate moment to moment that is propgated through a chain of thoughts.
Yes, this is one way to look at it.
@@DougsDharma doesn't it explains the continuity of a single identity without the need of a soul .. it could explains the affect of karma as well, since old experiences and thoughts could give arise to new thoughts through the this inter connected chain of thoughts (also the memory) hence suffering
Make a video on buddhism and vegetarianism
Sure, I did a video awhile back where I discussed the controversy over vegetarianism in early Buddhism: ruclips.net/video/r5oncPD7jKo/видео.html
As long as you view continuity through a Time lense, it will never make sense. Remove time, and everything is clear.
Dough, I have a question concerning the topic of rebirth. The Buddha is very often cited as saying that one should never take someone else's word for the truth, but always see for oneself. At the same time, in Buddhist texts and Buddhism related discussions, rebirth is presented - sometimes very off-handedly - as something that definitely exists. So, in the past, my conclusion was that many Buddhists or humans, for that matter, must have somehow personally experienced the reality of rebirth/former lives. Now, after watching this, other and especially the older video you recommend, I have gotten the impression that this is in no way the case. Rebirth, at the end of the day, is still a matter of belief, in the same way as judgment day of Christianity. Do I see this correctly? And: Are there respectable reports by people who have experienced the reality of rebirth/former lives and their journey? Thank you a lot, Thomas R.
The Buddha claims to have witnessed his prior lives just before becoming enlightened. He doesn't present this sort of knowledge as easy to achieve or widespread. I have doubts about rebirth myself, which is why I pursue a secular path of belief.
@@DougsDharma then what is the merit of all the efforts, if the sufferer gets to enjoy nothing. Seems like it is just a mental trick to accept failure and tragedy in life, for this why do you need such a vast construct of ideologies which when questioned breaks down to be dummies.
In essence, there is absolutely no self who feels either happiness or suffering--even Nibbana itself. There is no one who persists through rebirth. The so called "self" is a mere aggregation of physical and mental causes/conditions.
Well yes, and there is also the felt results of karmic effects.
How does one explain people, especially young kids who have vivid memories,of people,locations, and events. Which they never experienced? For example, one child remembered a house, the street snd certain other things in detail ,in New Orleans that occured years/decades before...Yet they had never visited there. Nor were they from Louisiana. Their parents were shocked when everything the kid said actually was real.
There are countless ways people learn things.
@@DougsDharma true, but that's a simplictist answer. Some things can't be explained away... I for one believe in a form of reincarnation. I'm not saying I believe when I die, that I myself will be reborn. But all things are energy and never truly dies. And I know that end the end it doesn't matter. But how I live here and now. It's just an observation.
If a ship made of wood is repaired over time with parts made of metal, is it the same ship once all it's wood has been replaced with metal? Doesn't seem like it. This is the thought experiment posed by Thomas Hobbes. Humans are the same way, our bodies are constantly being rebuilt. Even our memories are remade, every time we recall something from our past (which is why memory is so fallable). Cases of people being hit in the head and losing their memories and turning out with different personalities also make me wonder about self permanence.
Yes, the idea of the Ship of Theseus actually goes back to ancient Greek philosophers. It's a very interesting and revealing way to consider the self, as Derek Parfit has recently done.
I have one key question though, what does all the effort mean if in course of time that person dies without he realizing the delusion that is purported by Buddhism?. It is a simple question, I am clearly convinced that I exist and whatever effort I put in worldly situations mostly fructifies and I get to be totally aware of the consequences/experiences/realizations. Now, that being the case, let's say I flesh out all efforts possible to renounce my body, my likes and dislikes and I die subsequently in a period of time without nirvAnA dawning upon me, what is the worth of all the effort. For once I die, I am finished and that's it, i.e. there is no Shyam or the seamless vivid observer recognized as Shyam in the physical world.
What would make it worth all the effort for you? What does that mean to you?
@@DougsDharma I am captivated by the end result, the first hand apprehension on how suffering is put to rest and annulment of worries and the cause of them as well. Death to me is the greatest of worries and greatest of sorrows, if someone can convincingly apprehend death to be a mirage, what better?. Hence the firmness in my question, if I do not get to enjoy the fruits of my action what use is all the effort?. Please do not take any offense. To me this is kind of a non negotiable condition that one must factor in, most references seem to come close to providing the answer and digress away. Mental peace and mindfulness, yes are significant benefits, but a phenomenological construct of ontology with a mighty promise needs to provide answers for hard nosed empirical questions such as these that plague the minds of lower mortals like me.
Our criminal justice system assumes same-self over time, otherwise one could not be held accountable for any actions. Punishment is unjust if the person who is punished is not the person who committed the crime.
Well yes, though to be fair the Buddha rejected the claim that the person who had the result was not the person who did the act. The two were neither the same nor different.
Do you think that vinnanam anidassanam or consciousness without surface is that essence underneath it all that persists from rebirth to rebirth? 🤔
Not really. This is just the eternalist view with essence substituted for self. This is clearly pointed to as a wrong view. People have trouble accepting continuity without an unchanging thing that continues, yet this is just what we have to see. Continuity continues - there is continuity. Continuity functions as a process, not needing a permanent thing underneath.
@@cataliniosif6035 Hi, are you familiar with vinnanam anidassanam and the sutta in the Pali Canon where its discussed?
This is otherwise known as "invisible consciousness", which is also described as "luminous". It is not an essence underneath everything, but rather most likely an extended metaphor for states of samādhi. I did a video on it awhile back: ruclips.net/video/175JTI5AXc4/видео.html . It is not something that persists. The idea of a persisting consciousness is one of the "wrong views" of Sāti the Fisherman's son in MN 38: suttacentral.net/mn38/en/sujato
@@DougsDharma
Hi Doug:
Thank you for responding.
The phrase the luminous mind, which is mentioned in the Pabhassara Sutta is from the Pali phrase pabhassara citta and refers to the mind and not consciousness. I am talking about the phrase vinnanam anidassanam, which appears in DN 11 Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta and is translated by Sutta.com as consciousness that makes no showing. It is also mentioned in the MN 49 Brahmanimantanika Sutta which as stated below is a type of consciousness that is not related to the allness of the all or in other words it is not related to the six sense bases. (Items in parenthesis below were added by me).
Except from MN 49
Brahma: "Good sir, if you claim to directly know that which is not commensurate with the all-ness of all, may your claim not turn out to be vain and empty!'"
(The allness of the all refers to the six sense basis)
"'The consciousness that makes no showing (vinnanam anidassanam), Nor has to do with finiteness, Not claiming being with respect to all:
that is not commensurate with the earthness of earth, that is not commensurate with the waterness of water (the four elements, which according to Buddhism make up our bodies)...that is not commensurate with the all-ness of all (the six sense basis).'
Therefore, it appears that this “consciousness that makes no showing” is a different type of consciousness than the type discussed in MN 38.
I believe vinnanam anidassanam is only mentioned in these two suttas. However, the potential impact that clearly understanding what is meant by this type of consciousness can have on how we understand the Buddha’s teachings, merits its further investigation.
What are your thoughts?
@@Asereko8 In DN 11, the Buddha starts to say that it is in this "invisible consciousness" that the elements find no footing, are not to be experienced. But after that, just in a few lines, he says that this is where name and form ceases, where consciousness ceases.
In the Pāli this is mentioned as "Viññāṇassa nirodhena" - ceasing or quenching of consciousness. It's the same word used earlier to describe invisible consciousness, just with the possessive grammatical particle instead of the accusative one, used earlier.
To summarize, this clearly implies "Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ, anantaṃ sabbatopabhaṃ" = "Viññāṇassa nirodhena"
This means that the invisible consciousness discussed here is the ceasing of consciousness. As Doug indicated, the use of this is clearly metaphorical, unless you're willing to accept that the ceasing of viññāṇaṃ is a kind of viññāṇaṃ - but I find this to be quite faulty logic.
Also, this is described as an aspect that can be discerned in your own experience, rather than an essence that persists - this seems to be an extrapolation that you're making rather than something indicated in the suttas.
There is quite a strong tendency in us to reify process into things, but I find that this tendency is something that needs to be let go of if we want to understand Dhamma.
Hope this helps, practice well!
Navayana, or the Ambedkarites in India, do not have Karma as a concept in their new Buddhism- essentially as a final sweeping away of any and all reminiscent of casteism.
I think Dr. Ambedkar saw karma as having unskillful implications about caste if it was extended into a prior lifetime.
Doug, I just found your channel and really like what you have to say. It is, however, very distracting to try to listen carefully to you while your hands are moving so much. They convey your passion but they also pull a viewers attention away from your discourse, especially when they are constantly moving in and out of the field of view.
Thanks John, as for my hands they do what they will! 😄
Same here... I even started to place Dough's - excellent - videos in a way on my screen that his hands are hidden by the lower edge...
Hi Doug, i think that you’ll enjoy this article and perhaps inform your ways of pointing with respect to this matter. The author takes a philosophical and scientific approach but it’s written in a very clear manner. phantomself.org/the-illusion-of-survival/
Yes, I did an earlier video where I mentioned Derek Parfit's views; they are quite similar to the Buddha's (which Parfit recognized): ruclips.net/video/gSZjKKuvHEQ/видео.html
Truth doesn't give a shit about your beliefs.
Jed McKenna: Get a clue.