🧡 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 🙂 📙 You can find my new book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
There's a world of difference between philosophical speculation and real meditation practice. To approach emptiness as a "claim" to be debated intellectually is to miss its true value and power as a living insight. The insight of emptiness is like the proverbial finger pointing to the moon, and what it reveals is our absolute interdependence. The "me" that I cling to is composed entirely of "non-me" elements. This is not a denial of existence, but an affirmation of transcendental Oneness -- about as far from nihilism as you can get.
Yes, though to be fair my understanding is that Repetti does have a meditation practice as well. The Buddha himself debated these sorts of philosophical topics, so it's possible to do both.
Hi Doug, and thanks for this clip and your reply. If Repetti does have a meditation practice, then I'm all the more surprised by his critique of emptiness.
The idea that everything is a “transcendental oneness” is one entirely foreign to Buddhism-in fact Buddhism evolved as a rejection of this kinda of mystical unity in early Bramanic religion. I’d highly recommend you check out Thannisaro Bhikkhu’s book “Buddhist Romanticism” for a historical analysis of how that kind of idea entered modern Buddhism. Long story short it originates with the German romantics, not the Dhamma.
I think the nuance that was missing in the cathedral-argument from the original thread was that it's not that the cathedral doesn't exist, it's just that it doesn't exist independently and neither do its constituent parts. As a tree exists in dependence on roots, trunk, branches and leaves (and sunlight, water, air, etc...). That doesn't mean that there is no tree, it just means that there is no tree 'as such' wich exists independently of those factors. In this way, I think Buddhism is much less a form of nihilism and much more a counterposition to views like the Idealism of plato.
I think that the issue with both videos is that there is a fleeting whole that Buddhists call the 5 aggregates that constitutes a person. Person is not self. Self in Indian philosophy is permanent and unchanging which is different from the eternal intrinsically personal sole found in Christianity. I think this difference in conception of sole/self is the root of the problem.Yes, there is a person, but no, there is no there is no self/sole/atman makes no sense to an uninitiated westerner.
_"That doesn't mean that there is no tree, it just means that there is no tree 'as such' wich exists independently of those factors."_ Buddhism says that, and also that there is also no tree AT ALL. _"Buddhism is much less a form of nihilism and much more a counterposition to views like the Idealism of plato."_ I don't think Plato's "idealism" lies in opposition to Buddhist emptiness. Buddhist emptiness just goes FURTHER than Plato. Buddhism is not nihilistic, but only appears to be so to the "uninitiated" outsider.
I don't understand the last sentence. Platonism is a counter position to nihilism. So if Buddhism is a counter position to Platonism, doesn't that lend it to nihilism?
you deserve a far larger audience-- fantastic transmission of the teachings for all people, no matter their religious or philosophical stances. great vid as always. thank u. : )
I'm from Myanmar. Been a buddhist since I was young. From what I understand, Buddha talk about 2 views on reality. 1.Things as it is (objective principle) (ultimate truth as you said) 2.Things that we sees (conventional truth as you said) 1. This is like the chariot example, the chariot doesn't exist, what really exist is the parts that makes up the chariot. Then, you divide things further to see what ultimately exist. The buddha said 4 things are ultimately exist. They are ''rupa, mind, cittacetasika, amd nibbana''. In Brief, ''rupa and nama''. In other terms, the five aggregates and the escape from it. In other terms, the four noble truths. So you can say, from that perspective, buddha himself is made up of five aggregates so ultimately buddha doesn't exist. Yes this is true for this perspective. The perspective is based on sabhāvadhamma truth. 2. This is the way we see. In this, chariot exists. Buddha exists. The view on things that can be still divided into further smaller parts exist. This is also a reality we think. The perspective is based on paññatti truth. -Many passed arhants in our country taught that >>It is important to know both. As long as you reject no.1 view, you cannot attain wisdom or experience of nibbana. Because you think self exists and hence you don't recognize the nature. If you reject no.2 view, since buddha ultimately don't exist. The same applies to your father, mother, surroundings. Then, you are more likely to commit heavy karma and hence ended up in sufferings instead of attaining nibbana. So you need to realize both, accept both, the middle way. no1 view is for the attainment of nibbana. no2 view is for the accumulation of good merits. You need both on your spiritual journey.
The problem starts with the essential Western conception of 'things'. If only we could clearly understand that things as such do not exist. Why is this? Well, we need to finally SEE that things are nouns, whereas 'they' are verbs constantly changing. Our grasping directly causes suffering.
As a person with an academic background in Philosophy, my heart is set aflutter by this video! 😻 Hahaha! 😋 But I also love the Buddha's pragmatism. 😻 Thus: love, love, love! 😻😹
I think the criticism misses the point quite a bit. As a copier technician, one thing I learned very quickly was that a copier doesn't "exist" in the way that most people conceive of it, because they think of it as a kind of magic box (not that they realize that's their conception, but it is). Because they don't understand it, they create a paradigm for how they think it works, which is usually more than adequate for their daily needs. Much like we do for our concept of self. As I improved as a tech, I came to better and better understand the parts of the copier, and therefore better understand the whole. I no longer thought of it as one "thing" but as a collection of pieces working together toward a goal. As I improved further, each individual component became a collection of even smaller components, etc. None of this means that the copier as a whole doesn't /exist/. It's still there, spitting out copies. It just means that the imperfect mental image of a copier as a magic box is an illusion born of ignorance, which vanishes when you better understand what's really happening. I think it is sometimes useful to think of the self in this way. Just because I am a collection of parts does not change the fact that I exist. I know I exist because I am sitting here typing this, taking up resources and contributing to global warming. ;) But I can better understand how this thing I call "me" functions if I better understand how the smaller components function together as a system. This analogy continues even to the extent of recognizing that where I draw the line between "me" and "not me" may be arbitrary and subjective, but still a useful division to make in the moment, depending on context. (Is the finisher part of the copier? What about the feeder trays? The detachable power cable? Is the paper? Is the toner? The UI? Etc... A tech may have very different answers from a salesperson!) Just because you recognize something is abstract, arbitrarily defined, or invented for utility doesn't mean it ceases to exist. It just means you are better able to understand and utilize that thing to improve your life and reduce suffering. People sure like to overcomplicate things that are actually pretty simple. :)
Yes I think that's true Misty, and a copier is a great way to think of the self. At the end of the day, a copier isn't a different thing, distinct from all the parts working together a certain way. It's just a way of conceiving of this functioning whole.
This is a very interesting topic. I very much enjoy your videos. I commented on another video of yours about my bout with nihilism, and the way I escaped this conundrum for myself has many different facets. I apologize for commenting again on your videos, but I think hearing one person's ideas who really struggled with this and overcame it through buddhist concepts might help some people, and your topics are often related, and a good forum for talking about this from a buddhist perspective. (there is a tl;dr at the end) Focusing on specifically what is in this video: In my view, I think the conflation with nihilism with nothing existing is the main reason this problem occurs. The problem goes away when we realize that the real essence of nihilism is not whether or not nothing exists, the real issue is: *if* nothing exists, how does that makes us feel? I.e. Saying "nothing exists" is not necessarily nihilistic. It is following that with the belief "therefore, nothing matters" that is nihilistic. That is, even if it is true that things have an objective existence, this cannot really stop us from believing, at times, that things do not exist, because there will likely never be a way for us to prove logically, or empirically, that things exist, even if they do. This makes us feel like nothing matters, because if things might as well not exist, why does anything matter? Why should we practice compassion and loving kindness? Why should we even try living a wiser, kinder, and more stress free life? So in reality, the existence of things is unrelated to nihilism. And I believe personally that this is the nature of the two truths as well. I.e. it is a recognition that we can only say *if* nothing exists, or *if* things exist, and that we can never be sure if either is true, so in a sense, they are both equally true. (I am a mathematician and programmer by trade, so this is very similar to the concept of mathematical models in the field of meta-mathematics and formal logic. There is one model of experience in which nothing exists, and one model where things do exist). The question is how do we hold these two truths, which are both equally consistent with our experience, equally in our minds without favoring one over the other? And I think personally, for me, the answer was found in what was for me a surprising place: what in buddhism is called the Brahmaviharas. It seems at first that the two truths and the Brahmaviharas are completely unrelated (and even cyclical, since when we are in a nihilistic state we might ask, why should we practice them? More on that in the tl;dr). But I think it is because we often forget that these are all impossible without the action of understanding (not the desire for knowledge, but more like a playful curiosity, like a kid on a playground, or playing minecraft). This playful curiosity allows us to continuously switch between various ideas that are consistent with reality without getting lost in them, like when using our imaginations as children, and thus allows us to hold both of the truths in our minds. It is like when one watches a movie, we willfully suspend our disbelief to enjoy the good story that is being told, while at the same time knowing that the story is not really happening. This doesn't usually make us sad. We can hold these two ideas in our mind without causing more suffering to ourselves. tl;dr So, for those who may be drowning in nihilism currently, meditating on the Brahmaviharas may help you (I am no expert, but it might be worth a try. Doug has an excellent series on these!). If you are so steeped in nihilism that you cannot even see why you should do that (like I was), then consider that even nihilism is actually a result of this "playful curiosity" at its root, since, again, the two truths are arbitrarily picked since both are equally consistent with reality, and thus nihilism is really just as much of an imaginative, playful, suspension of disbelief as believing that things exist and matter.
Really fine exposition of the perception of reduction-ism in Buddhism. Thank you. It does seem to me that consciousness itself is the final irreducible "thing" that does exist, is not a thing, yet is not nihilistic, and which by definition, only facilitates the illusion of all other things thought to exist. That is two-truthie enough for me! I'm enjoying looking into your videos here.
What would Repetti say about the Hagia Sophia? At one time Hagia Sophia was a cathedral. Then it became a mosque. Then it became a museum. And within our lifetime it became a mosque again. Sure, there is something physical that is there, but whether it exists as a cathedral or not is only by social agreement based on mental formations, not due to an inherent property of cathedral-ness.
I have always been intrigued by the nullifications given in the heart sutra, just the other day I had this debate with a certain gentleman when he declared that Mahayana rejects the 4 noble truth because the 4 noble truths are Hinayana in nature, giving the heart sutra as an example. I explained that that could not have been further from the truth! The context of the nullifications given in the heart sutra is on the basis of the attainment of the perfection of wisdom - which is another way of saying the arrival at nirvana (conventionally speaking). Thus ‘no 4 noble truths’ really should be understood based on the raft simile (when nirvana is reached, clinging to any views would have evaporated away, or perhaps any of these no long cause any mental outflows) and not to be taken at face value that it is being rejected. Of course I might have been totally wrong but this is how I find reconciliation between mahayana philosophy and original Buddhism…
Great video, Doug. It’s a hard concept that, like you said, is even disagreed upon among Buddhists. I subscribe to a Zen/Heart Sutra understanding of form and emptiness. Funny enough, I think there is something hippies nail in talking about “star stuff”. If everything on this planet is finite, made of materials blasted from space, and everything made up of atoms - I think it’s right in saying that things do not appear or disappear. Time and space are the invisible hand that guide the world around us. I also think another issue here is the persistence of “no self” rather than “non self”, and I don’t find that to be a mere semantical disagreement. There is obviously a form walking, breathing, and thinking. I find a lot of these types of arguments come from the limitations of language. In many ways, I think it’s important we continue to use loan words (like anatta, duhkha, etc.) because it forces us into a nuanced understand of very important terms. Last thought, the path to enlightenment seems to be almost like a mountain. Very wide and varied from the bottom, but as people ascend, they all seem to come to the same point.
Have you thought about presenting the history of Buddhism after the Buddha passed away? How did the Abhidharma come to be? How did the different schools of Buddhism differ in their beliefs relative to the Abhidharma?
I may do videos on this eventually Aron. The early post-Buddha period is hard to pin down precisely, but the arising of the Abhidhamma might be useful. It's complicated though so I need more research.
@@DougsDharma I found what looks like a lot of information on Abhidharma in Wikipedia. There is also info on the Early Schools of Buddhism and Schools of Buddhism. It's probably not as comprehensive for what you require but it is interesting.
If anyone sees the Dhamma, he sees me (Shakyamuni / Gautama Buddha). anyone sees me ( Shakyamuni / Gautama Buddha), he sees the Dhamma. - Shakyamuni ( Gautama) Buddha
If I think it's because I exist. And my thoughts are the effects that I consider to be real or unreal, and that's what defines my individuality, my character, my mind, my personality, etc. That's the difference why each one has it's own time-space. So, everyone and everything are only different considerations or versions of the same subject called 'I', the innermost fountain of the cosmos. That's is why we say for example: "I am Victor, a mathematician "I am Caesar, you father", "I am Diane, the current wealthiest woman on Earth". "I don't like strangers that's why I bark or sting", and so on and on. In other words, the root cause of every single atom, particle, etc is 'I'. Therefore every single thing that might exist is it's own consideration and responsibility.
I think mereological eliminativism belongs to another form of essentialism in more subtle way. By denying the whole & glorifying the parts, it indirectly postulates "no thing" as the essence of the world. I think what Early Buddhism truly taught us is a more holistic way to see phenomena. It didn't deny the existence of compounds but it didn't also propose that there are compounds independent of their own parts. Five aggregates "virtually" exist as far as the parts & the whole intersect. Like e-money which exist as long as digital technology functions well. No more and no less.
Thankz, Doug. The Nikayas is the great Quest! I desire Wisdom ando Love for you in this crazy "6" 2022! See ya later brother. Its very good now for me listen you voice.
You sound like my lama in the 2nd half of this video. It was nice hearing you talk briefly about the heart sutra as well. Anyway a combination of listening to some of your presentations and to my lama (who doesn't have much English) did help me get through this pandemic so thank you.
its not whether things exist or don’t exist , the two extremes , it’s that things come into existence with ignorance , thirst, desire . The cathedral comes into existence with consciousness , there is no object independent of an observer . Dependent origination I think is quite helpful to see how things come into existence
Whether there are objects independent of observers isn't really a question the Buddha deals with, though the notion of "contact" suggests there might be.
I am 20 years old girl from Sri Lanka...I always try to understand That what you say...my English knowledge is weak,..sooo it is difficult to understand completely these vedios..but I try....thank you for spreading Buddhism all over the world.....do a vedio about the 6 heavens and 4 hells...it will be more interesting for the viewers....
I found this response from Repetti in the thread: " I am not arguing that there is a self, although I incline to that view, and the largest minority of Early Buddhists, the Pudgalavadins, thought the Dharma didn’t entail the non-existence of the self, but more at its indeterminate nature. I’m arguing that the state or experience that lacks a self does not logically count as significant evidence for the unreality or non-existence of the self." This part at least seems reasonable enough to me. The word that comes to my mind for describing the reality of things is "illusory". This was my first time navigating SuttaCentral's forums. My first impressions are that they are very clunky and not easy to follow conversations in... I have a lot to say about the incompleteness and transience of language and letting go of views, but today thinking about responding to arguments seems to make me irritable. Maybe I'm hungry. Maybe I need to let go of views myself. Anyways, thanks for the nuanced discussion as usual, Mr. Smith. Please like me.
You're very welcome Daniel. Yes clinging to views is always a danger in these discussions. Best to dip in for a time and then go eat or focus on the breath! 😄
I believe the primary purpose of Buddha's mereology as u rightly pointed, particularly concerning aggregates, is to highlight their impermanence as a means of diminishing attachment to the self. Regarding Nagarjuna's concept of emptiness, the intention is not to assert the non-existence of things ontologically, when seen through an infinite regress of mereology, but rather to underscore the intricate interdependence of all phenomena illustrating how everything arises in reliance on everything else in one big cosmic web where no single entity can be isolated as itself; rather, each can only be understood in relation to the whole or their true nature can only be known when seen against their context. This does not mean that the single entity does not exist, only that it does not exist independently. So the wise way to view an entity is not in isolation, but interdependently.This perspective encourages seeing even the smallest entities in the universe in relation to the entire cosmos, akin to seeing a planet within a grain of sand or an actor who is not self-centered but understand their role within the broader play. Adopting such a viewpoint expands the mind, fostering openness and reducing attachment to a singular sense of self while fostering a connection to the entirety of the world, resembling ecological principles. As Nietzsche aptly phrased it, "One must be a sea, to receive a polluted stream without becoming impure". Identifying oneself as a sea, rather than a mere drop, ensures resilience, allowing even the mightiest streams not to corrupt one's essence.
In so far as one can talk about something existing or not-existing, the aggregate of consciousness is present, even if in an extremely subtle form such as in the supramundane attainments. If there is the appearance of nothing existing, consciousness still exists. Therefore, out of all the aggregates, one may say that at least consciousness is certainly irreducible.
a great wised explanation.highly appreciated, When we see a cartoon, We see animals men and beings, and as children they mispercieve the flow of animations as beings. And then by seeing those beings,One may say there are no beings there,those beings are made out of animations.actually is it true?(well it seems like its true unless we think on this wisely) if one say"That beings are made out of animations" its a wrong view. the right view is "For the flow of animations as such it is not worthy enough called them as beings." In a same manner, even we all perceive the world as me mine my soul and other beings and so on,instead of them, the reality is the flow of five aggragates . Not that this me, made out of five aggragates. It is not worthy to perceive the five aggragates as me mine or my soul. This awareness is totally differences from Nihilism.
Hi Doug, have you read about Jan Westerhoff's work on Nagarjuna? He claims Nagarjuna's work implies ontological nihilism. I don't think he is right. And the title of Nagarjuna's book is The Middle Way, i.e. the middle way between naive realism about the world and nihilism about the world. But it is really troubling to me that someone who knows a lot about Nagarjuna like Westerhoff is misunderstanding Nagarjuna's work.
The four noble truths are the truth of suffering, the truth of the cause of suffering, the truth of the end of suffering, and the truth of the path that leads to the end of suffering. Right there in the 3rd and 4th noble truths is an acknowledgement of end of suffering and a prescription for the end of that suffering. How can that be remotely construed as nihilistic?
@@DougsDharma But to Rick Repetti's point, don't you think that it is "sanna" that causes us to cognize and create a label for a whole? I do see that there is a repeated theme in Dhamma to see everything as "verbs" (processes), even things we think of as "nouns".
Thank you for this video. Confusion arise from viewing "loka " (eg sankhara loka, satta loka or okasa loka) from a different viewpoint. Maybe this sutta gives a good information , SN 12.15 Kaccānagottasutta: “This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality-upon the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence. But for one who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world.
Eh, isn't Rick Paretti rejoinder is reference to emptiness section of heart sutra? Listen Sariputra, all phenomena bear the mark of Emptiness; their true nature is the nature of no Birth no Death, no Being no Non-being, no Defilement no Purity, no Increasing no Decreasing
I believe the heart sutra is only talking about the empty nature of the 5 aggregates and not all phenomena? I am having it recited in my head in Chinese while simultaneously translating it into English though so I might have missed something…
my humble take on it is that reason can only bring you so far and that there is more behind that world of representations. a truth beyond mara, for me that is nirvana, definitely not "nothing", it s nothing or empty to the rational mind but there is more to the mind/soul/living creature
Hi Dough, what is the different between "All phenomena are non-self" vs "No self" ? I have this question in my mind, may I know what's your opinion on this ? Thank you 🙏
"No self" asserts that there is literally no self, which is not something the Buddha ever did. "Non self" simply asserts that this or that object of awareness is not your self. This is something I could do a video on ... 🙂
@@DougsDharma I see, "all phenomena are non self", is it mean everything are not self? If yes, it's sound like "no-self". Because "all phenomena" include all things that either condition and uncondition, right ? Please correct if I'm wrong. Thank you 🙏
From my learning of the ideas in early Buddhist schools Sarvāstivāda and Sautrāntika: "No self" means there is no such a "self" that is independent of five aggregates. "All phenomena are non-self" means there is no such a "self", which is independent of five aggregates, that has the capability of enjoying, perceiving, understanding, using, occupying things or phenomena. For example, when you have a strong feeling of being hurt, it means that you are attached to "self" that is independent of five aggregates. You don't mean that your body and consciousness flow are hurt. You mean that the one being hurt is something above them. This attachment is tackled by "No self". Another example, you have a very beautiful bottle and you like it a lot. Do you mean that your body like and occupy it or your consciousness flow like and occupy it? No! You mean that the one which can like and occupy the bottle is something above them. This attachment is tackled by "All phenomena are non-self", which is actually "no self". It doesn't discuss anything related to the bottle. It doesn't investigate whether the essence of the bottle exist or not.
@@eddygan325 The views of Sarvāstivāda school (說一切有部, "the theory of all exists") are primarily based on the Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra 大毘婆沙論. They think that this Abhidharma is actually a sutra that is collected by 500 arhats and is originally from Buddha's teaching. The views of Sarvāstivāda and Sautrāntika are mainly listed and evaluated in Abhidharmakośa 俱舍論 by Vasubandhu. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarvastivada en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhidharma_Mah%C4%81vibh%C4%81%E1%B9%A3a_%C5%9A%C4%81stra
According to Buddhism, there is 28 fundamental material phenomenon (Rupa) as a Paramartha Dhamma (Fundamental Dhamma). But those things change too. So according to Buddhism, always there is something in the universe rather than nothing.
@@DougsDharma, It is a teaching from Abhidhamma. And according to Abhidhamma, there are 6 material phenomena (fundamental elementary particles) (Rupa) in an empty space called Anippanna Rupa. Thanks for your kind reply.
Yes I always realized that even “nothing” is “something”- or more importantly “nothing” IS. Everywhere I look there is always “something” and even when I finally see “nothing” it IS still “something”
@@joem1152, There was a continuation of nothingness that made a lot of dimensions and the universe. Nothingness was infinitely nothing for an infinite moment before the continuation of it as moments of nothingness (+0-0) in the 6 directions (+-0-+0)^6. And that can help to discover the birth of the dimensional formations.
I'm confused by this whole argument. Things must be made up of parts and in physics parts come together but the whole may take on different properties than the parts. If you have a box full of puzzle pieces then you could say you have a puzzle but you don't have a complete one until you have put it all together and upon completion the property of being completed is different than all the parts jumbled around. But maybe that's not good enough, just because you can democompose a chariot into parts doesn't mean you have a chariot if you have all the pieces, they must be put together in order to be one. But then again, like I said I really don't understand the argument so maybe that's not helpful. I don't see how the simple fact that "things are made of other things" mean they cannot exist, or that finding out that "true self" is more of an illusion than anything means anything as without that illusion we wouldn't have any need or use of our bodies.just because "true self" has no form doesn't mean it doesn't exist, "true self" is all form. We come from, are a part of, and therefore *are* the universe. I don't understand the issue here 🤔
Right, well the Buddha never said there was literally no self, only that any time we became attached to something that fit our notion of "self", it was going to change, and so whatever we had become attached to would no longer exist. And so we would be disappointed. But if this doesn't make sense to you right now, leave it aside and simply focus on practice. It isn't really intended to be an intellectual exercise as much as a practical way to view the world.
Science has been pursuing the quest for finding the fundamental particle to no avail. These conceptual levels of organization are groundless in an absolute sense. That is nihilism to me. The ground of being is inaccessible.
There is no sufficient theory of small multiplication You have to divide the six into seven and eight knowledge Then the theory will be sufficient. Otherwise you be stuck in the arising and deducing
All objects are, indeed, through ontological lenses mere symbols that we attribute to an agreggate of matter (or in the very end, energy). One could say this endless reductionism is pointless because it strips out the meaning of everything, making it look like, as you say, there's no self, there's no me, no Buda, no path, no nothing. But my takeaway from this is very different: it just shows plain and simple how meaning is subjective and how the observer is the real source of all meaning, that intrinsic meaning is either inexistent or unperceivable through our limited senses and rationality. In my opinion, the chariot fails as an metaphor to the self and gives room to superficial argumentation because of how its parts are not, in a functional perspective, complete, meaning, a chariot's wheel is useless without the chariot itself. Also, the parts of a chariot are physically bound to each other, and the shape/function of each one of them is interdependent. The way I see it, the agregates are complete elements in themselves, and achieve higher meaning when combined. Maybe a better analogy would be a dining set. A plate, a fork, a knife, a cup, they all are complete and functional parts on their own regard, achieving a higher and more complete purpose when aggregated, despite not being physically attached.
@@DougsDharma but Doug, don't you think that denying the validity of the parts as complete elements strengthens the validity of the whole as a complete element, therefore reinforcing the idea of self?
Buddhism says there are just the "parts", and also "nothing exists", including the parts. Yes, no buddha, no dharma, no sangha... no anything. But also, no nihilism. It's not nihilism. I don't think there are any texts saying that the Buddha asserts the parts exist, but the whole does not; that the parts are real, but the whole is unreal. Obviously, that is a silly argument.
My question is if one can reach enlightenment or nirvana in this existence...this incarnation...that means the end or cessation of suffering...right? For the individual, I mean...but it strikes me that this would mean I wouldn't suffer any discomfort in seeing a rape or murder take place...I'm immune to the discomfort and suffering as I have reached enlightenment. I am not suffering watching or hearing of the trauma I'm no longer there... Buddhism is moral relativism. LaVey had shit exponentially more suited to the here and now for the ones here and now
If you deny things because they are material and have parts, for sure it is nihilistic. The quote you give of the Buddha is also nihilistic, because all forms are impermanent. Everything is fleeting and changing and what exists now is not what existed yesterday. So it's a kind of total relativism and subjectivism. So nihilism since you can't say there is something that stays. But just from a moral perspective, detachment is in itself nihilistic as to the goal, it's looking at nothing in order to avoid suffering which comes from believing in something. Samsara is the wheel of life, nirvana is getting out of that, so it is also nihilistic fundamentally. It's avoiding the perishable that is believed to create suffering which is said to exist, but that should be avoided. So the goal is nihilistic, and the world itself is as well, since what makes things "exist" proper is the imperishable component, the one that stays. It's the divine element and what allows objectivity. It's the idea that there are rivers even if they are not there materially. Existence is that idea of the river that needs no river to exist. Otherwise, then the river is just material and does not really exist, just like that chariot analogy, or the two truths thing (because the ultimate is nothing). So your friend was right, not sure why you deny it either, it's the whole point of the Buddhists to be "enlightened" and tell people what they believe is nothing, or that everything is a lie, like in Zen. There is some wisdom in adopting those postures, but if you try and make it into something else, you loose that wisdom, and get nothing in return. Might as well find a real philosophy that explains things instead and believe in existence.
The goal of Buddhism isn't detachment, and saying something is impermanent isn't the same as saying it doesn't exist. Nor does Zen say that everything is a lie. I'm not sure where you got these ideas, but none of them reflect Buddhist teachings.
🧡 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 🙂
📙 You can find my new book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
Please do more of this type of video. Controversy and the exchange of ideas to resolve the issue is a great way to learn and challenge our own views.
Thanks Dread, yes I may do more of these in the future. I do like to keep things positive in general though!
There's a world of difference between philosophical speculation and real meditation practice. To approach emptiness as a "claim" to be debated intellectually is to miss its true value and power as a living insight. The insight of emptiness is like the proverbial finger pointing to the moon, and what it reveals is our absolute interdependence. The "me" that I cling to is composed entirely of "non-me" elements. This is not a denial of existence, but an affirmation of transcendental Oneness -- about as far from nihilism as you can get.
Well said.
Yes, though to be fair my understanding is that Repetti does have a meditation practice as well. The Buddha himself debated these sorts of philosophical topics, so it's possible to do both.
Hi Doug, and thanks for this clip and your reply. If Repetti does have a meditation practice, then I'm all the more surprised by his critique of emptiness.
The idea that everything is a “transcendental oneness” is one entirely foreign to Buddhism-in fact Buddhism evolved as a rejection of this kinda of mystical unity in early Bramanic religion. I’d highly recommend you check out Thannisaro Bhikkhu’s book “Buddhist Romanticism” for a historical analysis of how that kind of idea entered modern Buddhism. Long story short it originates with the German romantics, not the Dhamma.
Penetrating and insightful comment George, thank you. I agree.
I think the nuance that was missing in the cathedral-argument from the original thread was that it's not that the cathedral doesn't exist, it's just that it doesn't exist independently and neither do its constituent parts. As a tree exists in dependence on roots, trunk, branches and leaves (and sunlight, water, air, etc...). That doesn't mean that there is no tree, it just means that there is no tree 'as such' wich exists independently of those factors. In this way, I think Buddhism is much less a form of nihilism and much more a counterposition to views like the Idealism of plato.
Yes that's one way to look at it Maximilian, thanks!
I think that the issue with both videos is that there is a fleeting whole that Buddhists call the 5 aggregates that constitutes a person. Person is not self. Self in Indian philosophy is permanent and unchanging which is different from the eternal intrinsically personal sole found in Christianity. I think this difference in conception of sole/self is the root of the problem.Yes, there is a person, but no, there is no there is no self/sole/atman makes no sense to an uninitiated westerner.
_"That doesn't mean that there is no tree, it just means that there is no tree 'as such' wich exists independently of those factors."_
Buddhism says that, and also that there is also no tree AT ALL.
_"Buddhism is much less a form of nihilism and much more a counterposition to views like the Idealism of plato."_
I don't think Plato's "idealism" lies in opposition to Buddhist emptiness. Buddhist emptiness just goes FURTHER than Plato.
Buddhism is not nihilistic, but only appears to be so to the "uninitiated" outsider.
I don't understand the last sentence. Platonism is a counter position to nihilism. So if Buddhism is a counter position to Platonism, doesn't that lend it to nihilism?
@@stephenrizzo Science accepts the idea of self. So Buddhism rejects science?
you deserve a far larger audience-- fantastic transmission of the teachings for all people, no matter their religious or philosophical stances. great vid as always. thank u. : )
Congrats on the publication of your new book!
Thank you so much! 😀
I'm from Myanmar. Been a buddhist since I was young. From what I understand, Buddha talk about 2 views on reality.
1.Things as it is (objective principle) (ultimate truth as you said)
2.Things that we sees (conventional truth as you said)
1. This is like the chariot example, the chariot doesn't exist, what really exist is the parts that makes up the chariot. Then, you divide things further to see what ultimately exist. The buddha said 4 things are ultimately exist. They are ''rupa, mind, cittacetasika, amd nibbana''. In Brief, ''rupa and nama''. In other terms, the five aggregates and the escape from it. In other terms, the four noble truths.
So you can say, from that perspective, buddha himself is made up of five aggregates so ultimately buddha doesn't exist. Yes this is true for this perspective. The perspective is based on sabhāvadhamma truth.
2. This is the way we see. In this, chariot exists. Buddha exists. The view on things that can be still divided into further smaller parts exist. This is also a reality we think. The perspective is based on paññatti truth.
-Many passed arhants in our country taught that >>It is important to know both. As long as you reject no.1 view, you cannot attain wisdom or experience of nibbana. Because you think self exists and hence you don't recognize the nature. If you reject no.2 view, since buddha ultimately don't exist. The same applies to your father, mother, surroundings. Then, you are more likely to commit heavy karma and hence ended up in sufferings instead of attaining nibbana. So you need to realize both, accept both, the middle way.
no1 view is for the attainment of nibbana. no2 view is for the accumulation of good merits. You need both on your spiritual journey.
Yes, both should be seen as truths, from different perspectives.
The problem starts with the essential Western conception of 'things'. If only we could clearly understand that things as such do not exist. Why is this? Well, we need to finally SEE that things are nouns, whereas 'they' are verbs constantly changing. Our grasping directly causes suffering.
As a person with an academic background in Philosophy, my heart is set aflutter by this video! 😻 Hahaha! 😋 But I also love the Buddha's pragmatism. 😻 Thus: love, love, love! 😻😹
Cool! Thank you!! 😊
I think the criticism misses the point quite a bit. As a copier technician, one thing I learned very quickly was that a copier doesn't "exist" in the way that most people conceive of it, because they think of it as a kind of magic box (not that they realize that's their conception, but it is). Because they don't understand it, they create a paradigm for how they think it works, which is usually more than adequate for their daily needs. Much like we do for our concept of self.
As I improved as a tech, I came to better and better understand the parts of the copier, and therefore better understand the whole. I no longer thought of it as one "thing" but as a collection of pieces working together toward a goal. As I improved further, each individual component became a collection of even smaller components, etc. None of this means that the copier as a whole doesn't /exist/. It's still there, spitting out copies. It just means that the imperfect mental image of a copier as a magic box is an illusion born of ignorance, which vanishes when you better understand what's really happening.
I think it is sometimes useful to think of the self in this way. Just because I am a collection of parts does not change the fact that I exist. I know I exist because I am sitting here typing this, taking up resources and contributing to global warming. ;) But I can better understand how this thing I call "me" functions if I better understand how the smaller components function together as a system.
This analogy continues even to the extent of recognizing that where I draw the line between "me" and "not me" may be arbitrary and subjective, but still a useful division to make in the moment, depending on context. (Is the finisher part of the copier? What about the feeder trays? The detachable power cable? Is the paper? Is the toner? The UI? Etc... A tech may have very different answers from a salesperson!)
Just because you recognize something is abstract, arbitrarily defined, or invented for utility doesn't mean it ceases to exist. It just means you are better able to understand and utilize that thing to improve your life and reduce suffering.
People sure like to overcomplicate things that are actually pretty simple. :)
Yes I think that's true Misty, and a copier is a great way to think of the self. At the end of the day, a copier isn't a different thing, distinct from all the parts working together a certain way. It's just a way of conceiving of this functioning whole.
Thank you Sir for sharing your views , makes it easier to understand Doug's
This is a very interesting topic. I very much enjoy your videos.
I commented on another video of yours about my bout with nihilism, and the way I escaped this conundrum for myself has many different facets. I apologize for commenting again on your videos, but I think hearing one person's ideas who really struggled with this and overcame it through buddhist concepts might help some people, and your topics are often related, and a good forum for talking about this from a buddhist perspective. (there is a tl;dr at the end)
Focusing on specifically what is in this video:
In my view, I think the conflation with nihilism with nothing existing is the main reason this problem occurs. The problem goes away when we realize that the real essence of nihilism is not whether or not nothing exists, the real issue is: *if* nothing exists, how does that makes us feel? I.e. Saying "nothing exists" is not necessarily nihilistic. It is following that with the belief "therefore, nothing matters" that is nihilistic.
That is, even if it is true that things have an objective existence, this cannot really stop us from believing, at times, that things do not exist, because there will likely never be a way for us to prove logically, or empirically, that things exist, even if they do. This makes us feel like nothing matters, because if things might as well not exist, why does anything matter? Why should we practice compassion and loving kindness? Why should we even try living a wiser, kinder, and more stress free life? So in reality, the existence of things is unrelated to nihilism.
And I believe personally that this is the nature of the two truths as well. I.e. it is a recognition that we can only say *if* nothing exists, or *if* things exist, and that we can never be sure if either is true, so in a sense, they are both equally true. (I am a mathematician and programmer by trade, so this is very similar to the concept of mathematical models in the field of meta-mathematics and formal logic. There is one model of experience in which nothing exists, and one model where things do exist).
The question is how do we hold these two truths, which are both equally consistent with our experience, equally in our minds without favoring one over the other?
And I think personally, for me, the answer was found in what was for me a surprising place: what in buddhism is called the Brahmaviharas. It seems at first that the two truths and the Brahmaviharas are completely unrelated (and even cyclical, since when we are in a nihilistic state we might ask, why should we practice them? More on that in the tl;dr). But I think it is because we often forget that these are all impossible without the action of understanding (not the desire for knowledge, but more like a playful curiosity, like a kid on a playground, or playing minecraft). This playful curiosity allows us to continuously switch between various ideas that are consistent with reality without getting lost in them, like when using our imaginations as children, and thus allows us to hold both of the truths in our minds.
It is like when one watches a movie, we willfully suspend our disbelief to enjoy the good story that is being told, while at the same time knowing that the story is not really happening. This doesn't usually make us sad. We can hold these two ideas in our mind without causing more suffering to ourselves.
tl;dr
So, for those who may be drowning in nihilism currently, meditating on the Brahmaviharas may help you (I am no expert, but it might be worth a try. Doug has an excellent series on these!). If you are so steeped in nihilism that you cannot even see why you should do that (like I was), then consider that even nihilism is actually a result of this "playful curiosity" at its root, since, again, the two truths are arbitrarily picked since both are equally consistent with reality, and thus nihilism is really just as much of an imaginative, playful, suspension of disbelief as believing that things exist and matter.
🙏🙂
Really fine exposition of the perception of reduction-ism in Buddhism. Thank you. It does seem to me that consciousness itself is the final irreducible "thing" that does exist, is not a thing, yet is not nihilistic, and which by definition, only facilitates the illusion of all other things thought to exist. That is two-truthie enough for me! I'm enjoying looking into your videos here.
You're very welcome!
What would Repetti say about the Hagia Sophia? At one time Hagia Sophia was a cathedral. Then it became a mosque. Then it became a museum. And within our lifetime it became a mosque again. Sure, there is something physical that is there, but whether it exists as a cathedral or not is only by social agreement based on mental formations, not due to an inherent property of cathedral-ness.
Yes, I'd agree!
Dukha does not mean suffering. Rather it does mean instability or lack of a satisfaction, and/or lack of a substance.
I prefer "unsatisfactoriness" myself, though it's a long word. In some circumstances "suffering" can suffice. The word can literally mean "suffering".
I have always been intrigued by the nullifications given in the heart sutra, just the other day I had this debate with a certain gentleman when he declared that Mahayana rejects the 4 noble truth because the 4 noble truths are Hinayana in nature, giving the heart sutra as an example. I explained that that could not have been further from the truth! The context of the nullifications given in the heart sutra is on the basis of the attainment of the perfection of wisdom - which is another way of saying the arrival at nirvana (conventionally speaking). Thus ‘no 4 noble truths’ really should be understood based on the raft simile (when nirvana is reached, clinging to any views would have evaporated away, or perhaps any of these no long cause any mental outflows) and not to be taken at face value that it is being rejected. Of course I might have been totally wrong but this is how I find reconciliation between mahayana philosophy and original Buddhism…
That is certainly one good way to look at it, handy!
My favorite two "truths"
1. cause & effect
2. being & doing
add up to conclude that
madness is better than
nothing.
Great video, Doug. It’s a hard concept that, like you said, is even disagreed upon among Buddhists. I subscribe to a Zen/Heart Sutra understanding of form and emptiness. Funny enough, I think there is something hippies nail in talking about “star stuff”. If everything on this planet is finite, made of materials blasted from space, and everything made up of atoms - I think it’s right in saying that things do not appear or disappear. Time and space are the invisible hand that guide the world around us.
I also think another issue here is the persistence of “no self” rather than “non self”, and I don’t find that to be a mere semantical disagreement. There is obviously a form walking, breathing, and thinking. I find a lot of these types of arguments come from the limitations of language. In many ways, I think it’s important we continue to use loan words (like anatta, duhkha, etc.) because it forces us into a nuanced understand of very important terms.
Last thought, the path to enlightenment seems to be almost like a mountain. Very wide and varied from the bottom, but as people ascend, they all seem to come to the same point.
Yes. These are complicated and difficult issues for sure!
Have you thought about presenting the history of Buddhism after the Buddha passed away? How did the Abhidharma come to be? How did the different schools of Buddhism differ in their beliefs relative to the Abhidharma?
I may do videos on this eventually Aron. The early post-Buddha period is hard to pin down precisely, but the arising of the Abhidhamma might be useful. It's complicated though so I need more research.
@@DougsDharma I found what looks like a lot of information on Abhidharma in Wikipedia. There is also info on the Early Schools of Buddhism and Schools of Buddhism. It's probably not as comprehensive for what you require but it is interesting.
If anyone sees the Dhamma, he sees me (Shakyamuni / Gautama Buddha). anyone sees me ( Shakyamuni / Gautama Buddha), he sees the Dhamma.
- Shakyamuni ( Gautama) Buddha
Yes I discussed that statement of the Buddha in one of my past videos: ruclips.net/video/wi2sd65l95o/видео.html
If I think it's because I exist. And my thoughts are the effects that I consider to be real or unreal, and that's what defines my individuality, my character, my mind, my personality, etc. That's the difference why each one has it's own time-space.
So, everyone and everything are only different considerations or versions of the same subject called 'I', the innermost fountain of the cosmos. That's is why we say for example:
"I am Victor, a mathematician "I am Caesar, you father", "I am Diane, the current wealthiest woman on Earth". "I don't like strangers that's why I bark or sting", and so on and on. In other words, the root cause of every single atom, particle, etc is 'I'. Therefore every single thing that might exist is it's own consideration and responsibility.
I think mereological eliminativism belongs to another form of essentialism in more subtle way. By denying the whole & glorifying the parts, it indirectly postulates "no thing" as the essence of the world. I think what Early Buddhism truly taught us is a more holistic way to see phenomena. It didn't deny the existence of compounds but it didn't also propose that there are compounds independent of their own parts. Five aggregates "virtually" exist as far as the parts & the whole intersect. Like e-money which exist as long as digital technology functions well. No more and no less.
Maybe so! Thanks Ucup.
Thankz, Doug. The Nikayas is the great Quest! I desire Wisdom ando Love for you in this crazy "6" 2022! See ya later brother. Its very good now for me listen you voice.
🙏😊
You sound like my lama in the 2nd half of this video. It was nice hearing you talk briefly about the heart sutra as well. Anyway a combination of listening to some of your presentations and to my lama (who doesn't have much English) did help me get through this pandemic so thank you.
Thanks for sharing this Jeremy, I'm glad to hear it. 🙏😊
its not whether things exist or don’t exist , the two extremes , it’s that things come into existence with ignorance , thirst, desire . The cathedral comes into existence with consciousness , there is no object independent of an observer . Dependent origination I think is quite helpful to see how things come into existence
Whether there are objects independent of observers isn't really a question the Buddha deals with, though the notion of "contact" suggests there might be.
I am 20 years old girl from Sri Lanka...I always try to understand That what you say...my English knowledge is weak,..sooo it is difficult to understand completely these vedios..but I try....thank you for spreading Buddhism all over the world.....do a vedio about the 6 heavens and 4 hells...it will be more interesting for the viewers....
Thanks so much Gayathri, your English is very good! As for a video on the Realms of Existence, see: ruclips.net/video/JEwQvlfMUf8/видео.html
Thank you 😊 very much
I found this response from Repetti in the thread: " I am not arguing that there is a self, although I incline to that view, and the largest minority of Early Buddhists, the Pudgalavadins, thought the Dharma didn’t entail the non-existence of the self, but more at its indeterminate nature. I’m arguing that the state or experience that lacks a self does not logically count as significant evidence for the unreality or non-existence of the self." This part at least seems reasonable enough to me. The word that comes to my mind for describing the reality of things is "illusory".
This was my first time navigating SuttaCentral's forums. My first impressions are that they are very clunky and not easy to follow conversations in... I have a lot to say about the incompleteness and transience of language and letting go of views, but today thinking about responding to arguments seems to make me irritable. Maybe I'm hungry. Maybe I need to let go of views myself.
Anyways, thanks for the nuanced discussion as usual, Mr. Smith. Please like me.
You're very welcome Daniel. Yes clinging to views is always a danger in these discussions. Best to dip in for a time and then go eat or focus on the breath! 😄
The irony of his response around the 3:45 mark is that he almost hits the nail on the head, just with the wrong perspective
😄
I believe the primary purpose of Buddha's mereology as u rightly pointed, particularly concerning aggregates, is to highlight their impermanence as a means of diminishing attachment to the self. Regarding Nagarjuna's concept of emptiness, the intention is not to assert the non-existence of things ontologically, when seen through an infinite regress of mereology, but rather to underscore the intricate interdependence of all phenomena illustrating how everything arises in reliance on everything else in one big cosmic web where no single entity can be isolated as itself; rather, each can only be understood in relation to the whole or their true nature can only be known when seen against their context. This does not mean that the single entity does not exist, only that it does not exist independently. So the wise way to view an entity is not in isolation, but interdependently.This perspective encourages seeing even the smallest entities in the universe in relation to the entire cosmos, akin to seeing a planet within a grain of sand or an actor who is not self-centered but understand their role within the broader play. Adopting such a viewpoint expands the mind, fostering openness and reducing attachment to a singular sense of self while fostering a connection to the entirety of the world, resembling ecological principles. As Nietzsche aptly phrased it, "One must be a sea, to receive a polluted stream without becoming impure". Identifying oneself as a sea, rather than a mere drop, ensures resilience, allowing even the mightiest streams not to corrupt one's essence.
Yes I discussed a little of how this emphasis on interconnection developed in my video on Indra’s Net: ruclips.net/video/CQN7sVmckso/видео.html
thanks! hey does the beard itch when wearing a mask? im thinking of growing one. take care
Nah, it's fine! 😄
Another great video! Thanks Doug.
My pleasure Pedro!
In so far as one can talk about something existing or not-existing, the aggregate of consciousness is present, even if in an extremely subtle form such as in the supramundane attainments. If there is the appearance of nothing existing, consciousness still exists. Therefore, out of all the aggregates, one may say that at least consciousness is certainly irreducible.
a great wised explanation.highly appreciated,
When we see a cartoon, We see animals men and beings, and as children they mispercieve the flow of animations as beings.
And then by seeing those beings,One may say there are no beings there,those beings are made out of animations.actually is it true?(well it seems like its true unless we think on this wisely)
if one say"That beings are made out of animations" its a wrong view.
the right view is "For the flow of animations as such it is not worthy enough called them as beings."
In a same manner, even we all perceive the world as me mine my soul and other beings and so on,instead of them, the reality is the flow of five aggragates .
Not that this me, made out of five aggragates.
It is not worthy to perceive the five aggragates as me mine or my soul.
This awareness is totally differences from Nihilism.
Yes, exactly so! 🙏😊
Hi Doug, have you read about Jan Westerhoff's work on Nagarjuna? He claims Nagarjuna's work implies ontological nihilism. I don't think he is right. And the title of Nagarjuna's book is The Middle Way, i.e. the middle way between naive realism about the world and nihilism about the world. But it is really troubling to me that someone who knows a lot about Nagarjuna like Westerhoff is misunderstanding Nagarjuna's work.
I haven't read Westerhoff's book. Interpreting Nāgārjuna is a very, very difficult thing!
The four noble truths are the truth of suffering, the truth of the cause of suffering, the truth of the end of suffering, and the truth of the path that leads to the end of suffering. Right there in the 3rd and 4th noble truths is an acknowledgement of end of suffering and a prescription for the end of that suffering. How can that be remotely construed as nihilistic?
Thanks Shantanu.
@@DougsDharma But to Rick Repetti's point, don't you think that it is "sanna" that causes us to cognize and create a label for a whole? I do see that there is a repeated theme in Dhamma to see everything as "verbs" (processes), even things we think of as "nouns".
You make good videos. Keep it up.
Thanks, will do!
Thank you for this video. Confusion arise from viewing "loka " (eg sankhara loka, satta loka or okasa loka) from a different viewpoint. Maybe this sutta gives a good information , SN 12.15 Kaccānagottasutta: “This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality-upon the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence. But for one who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world.
Right, this is a very famous quote, the only one from the suttas I believe cited in Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.
Eh, isn't Rick Paretti rejoinder is reference to emptiness section of heart sutra?
Listen Sariputra,
all phenomena bear the mark of Emptiness;
their true nature is the nature of
no Birth no Death,
no Being no Non-being,
no Defilement no Purity,
no Increasing no Decreasing
Well the Heart Sutra may be relevant here, but I don't think it's suggesting nihilism ... !
I believe the heart sutra is only talking about the empty nature of the 5 aggregates and not all phenomena? I am having it recited in my head in Chinese while simultaneously translating it into English though so I might have missed something…
my humble take on it is that reason can only bring you so far and that there is more behind that world of representations. a truth beyond mara, for me that is nirvana, definitely not "nothing", it s nothing or empty to the rational mind but there is more to the mind/soul/living creature
Hi Dough, what is the different between "All phenomena are non-self" vs "No self" ? I have this question in my mind, may I know what's your opinion on this ? Thank you 🙏
"No self" asserts that there is literally no self, which is not something the Buddha ever did. "Non self" simply asserts that this or that object of awareness is not your self. This is something I could do a video on ... 🙂
@@DougsDharma I see, "all phenomena are non self", is it mean everything are not self? If yes, it's sound like "no-self". Because "all phenomena" include all things that either condition and uncondition, right ? Please correct if I'm wrong. Thank you 🙏
From my learning of the ideas in early Buddhist schools Sarvāstivāda and Sautrāntika:
"No self" means there is no such a "self" that is independent of five aggregates.
"All phenomena are non-self" means there is no such a "self", which is independent of five aggregates, that has the capability of enjoying, perceiving, understanding, using, occupying things or phenomena.
For example, when you have a strong feeling of being hurt, it means that you are attached to "self" that is independent of five aggregates. You don't mean that your body and consciousness flow are hurt. You mean that the one being hurt is something above them. This attachment is tackled by "No self".
Another example, you have a very beautiful bottle and you like it a lot. Do you mean that your body like and occupy it or your consciousness flow like and occupy it? No! You mean that the one which can like and occupy the bottle is something above them. This attachment is tackled by "All phenomena are non-self", which is actually "no self". It doesn't discuss anything related to the bottle. It doesn't investigate whether the essence of the bottle exist or not.
@@luezhenyuan2331 Thank you for explanation. Sarvastivada school is it Agama script ? (阿含经) 🙏🙏🙏
@@eddygan325 The views of Sarvāstivāda school (說一切有部, "the theory of all exists") are primarily based on the Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra 大毘婆沙論. They think that this Abhidharma is actually a sutra that is collected by 500 arhats and is originally from Buddha's teaching.
The views of Sarvāstivāda and Sautrāntika are mainly listed and evaluated in Abhidharmakośa 俱舍論 by Vasubandhu.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarvastivada
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhidharma_Mah%C4%81vibh%C4%81%E1%B9%A3a_%C5%9A%C4%81stra
In Mahyana emptiness itself is also empty.
That's right. That comes from Nāgārjuna.
According to Buddhism, there is 28 fundamental material phenomenon (Rupa) as a Paramartha Dhamma (Fundamental Dhamma). But those things change too. So according to Buddhism, always there is something in the universe rather than nothing.
Yes, I would assume this is a teaching from the abhidhamma.
@@DougsDharma, It is a teaching from Abhidhamma. And according to Abhidhamma, there are 6 material phenomena (fundamental elementary particles) (Rupa) in an empty space called Anippanna Rupa. Thanks for your kind reply.
Yes I always realized that even “nothing” is “something”- or more importantly “nothing” IS. Everywhere I look there is always “something” and even when I finally see “nothing” it IS still “something”
@@joem1152, There was a continuation of nothingness that made a lot of dimensions and the universe. Nothingness was infinitely nothing for an infinite moment before the continuation of it as moments of nothingness (+0-0) in the 6 directions (+-0-+0)^6. And that can help to discover the birth of the dimensional formations.
The first taste of nothing has one running hopping skipping and jumping as if they know something forgetting that the taste was of nothing.
I'm confused by this whole argument. Things must be made up of parts and in physics parts come together but the whole may take on different properties than the parts. If you have a box full of puzzle pieces then you could say you have a puzzle but you don't have a complete one until you have put it all together and upon completion the property of being completed is different than all the parts jumbled around.
But maybe that's not good enough, just because you can democompose a chariot into parts doesn't mean you have a chariot if you have all the pieces, they must be put together in order to be one.
But then again, like I said I really don't understand the argument so maybe that's not helpful. I don't see how the simple fact that "things are made of other things" mean they cannot exist, or that finding out that "true self" is more of an illusion than anything means anything as without that illusion we wouldn't have any need or use of our bodies.just because "true self" has no form doesn't mean it doesn't exist, "true self" is all form. We come from, are a part of, and therefore *are* the universe. I don't understand the issue here 🤔
Right, well the Buddha never said there was literally no self, only that any time we became attached to something that fit our notion of "self", it was going to change, and so whatever we had become attached to would no longer exist. And so we would be disappointed. But if this doesn't make sense to you right now, leave it aside and simply focus on practice. It isn't really intended to be an intellectual exercise as much as a practical way to view the world.
Science has been pursuing the quest for finding the fundamental particle to no avail. These conceptual levels of organization are groundless in an absolute sense. That is nihilism to me. The ground of being is inaccessible.
Do we need a ground of being?
There is no sufficient theory of small multiplication
You have to divide the six into seven and eight knowledge
Then the theory will be sufficient.
Otherwise you be stuck in the arising and deducing
All objects are, indeed, through ontological lenses mere symbols that we attribute to an agreggate of matter (or in the very end, energy). One could say this endless reductionism is pointless because it strips out the meaning of everything, making it look like, as you say, there's no self, there's no me, no Buda, no path, no nothing. But my takeaway from this is very different: it just shows plain and simple how meaning is subjective and how the observer is the real source of all meaning, that intrinsic meaning is either inexistent or unperceivable through our limited senses and rationality.
In my opinion, the chariot fails as an metaphor to the self and gives room to superficial argumentation because of how its parts are not, in a functional perspective, complete, meaning, a chariot's wheel is useless without the chariot itself. Also, the parts of a chariot are physically bound to each other, and the shape/function of each one of them is interdependent. The way I see it, the agregates are complete elements in themselves, and achieve higher meaning when combined. Maybe a better analogy would be a dining set. A plate, a fork, a knife, a cup, they all are complete and functional parts on their own regard, achieving a higher and more complete purpose when aggregated, despite not being physically attached.
Interesting. To me the aggregates are like parts of a chariot: useless without the other parts. Without consciousness, feeling is useless. And so on.
@@DougsDharma but Doug, don't you think that denying the validity of the parts as complete elements strengthens the validity of the whole as a complete element, therefore reinforcing the idea of self?
Samvega seems pretty nihilistic to me...
🙏
🙏😊
Buddhism says there are just the "parts", and also "nothing exists", including the parts.
Yes, no buddha, no dharma, no sangha... no anything.
But also, no nihilism. It's not nihilism.
I don't think there are any texts saying that the Buddha asserts the parts exist, but the whole does not; that the parts are real, but the whole is unreal. Obviously, that is a silly argument.
Excellent as ever Doug!
It is apparent, however, that you are no cartwright. Don't give up your day job 😅
Thanks Patrick! Whick Cartwright do you mean?
Au contraire. Causation needs to be considered on a lateral axis. It’s not about backward or forward, but downward. Cartwright is a poser 😁😁😁.
@@DougsDharma a cart (wagon) maker. That wheels go on 😉👍
@@DougsDharma other than that, definitely 'Hoss'. For demeanour, not stature.
My question is if one can reach enlightenment or nirvana in this existence...this incarnation...that means the end or cessation of suffering...right? For the individual, I mean...but it strikes me that this would mean I wouldn't suffer any discomfort in seeing a rape or murder take place...I'm immune to the discomfort and suffering as I have reached enlightenment. I am not suffering watching or hearing of the trauma I'm no longer there... Buddhism is moral relativism. LaVey had shit exponentially more suited to the here and now for the ones here and now
There is a difference between viewing something as morally incorrect and suffering from hearing about it.
Meteorological evangelicalism?
😄
If you deny things because they are material and have parts, for sure it is nihilistic.
The quote you give of the Buddha is also nihilistic, because all forms are impermanent. Everything is fleeting and changing and what exists now is not what existed yesterday. So it's a kind of total relativism and subjectivism. So nihilism since you can't say there is something that stays.
But just from a moral perspective, detachment is in itself nihilistic as to the goal, it's looking at nothing in order to avoid suffering which comes from believing in something. Samsara is the wheel of life, nirvana is getting out of that, so it is also nihilistic fundamentally. It's avoiding the perishable that is believed to create suffering which is said to exist, but that should be avoided.
So the goal is nihilistic, and the world itself is as well, since what makes things "exist" proper is the imperishable component, the one that stays. It's the divine element and what allows objectivity. It's the idea that there are rivers even if they are not there materially. Existence is that idea of the river that needs no river to exist. Otherwise, then the river is just material and does not really exist, just like that chariot analogy, or the two truths thing (because the ultimate is nothing).
So your friend was right, not sure why you deny it either, it's the whole point of the Buddhists to be "enlightened" and tell people what they believe is nothing, or that everything is a lie, like in Zen. There is some wisdom in adopting those postures, but if you try and make it into something else, you loose that wisdom, and get nothing in return. Might as well find a real philosophy that explains things instead and believe in existence.
The goal of Buddhism isn't detachment, and saying something is impermanent isn't the same as saying it doesn't exist. Nor does Zen say that everything is a lie. I'm not sure where you got these ideas, but none of them reflect Buddhist teachings.