🧡 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 book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
Let's say there are 2 selves. 1. The person with his habits and specific attributes. 2. The soul which is not in the body, but received as a signal (just like a radio receives the signal). We are a combination of both. The most repeated passage in ancient poli is "isa kaia nami sata" which means is "this is not the soul". It is just showing what the soul is not and not referring to the idea that there is no soul. The soul is not the body, but its recieved by it.
"Play your part in the comedy, but don't identify yourself with your role!" "We do not possess an 'ego.' We are possessed by the idea of one." - Wei Wu Wei
Thanks Doug. I deeply appreciate your approach and analysis of Buddhist philosophy. A river changes day by day. Bound by banks as it make’s its way. The banks shape the river. The river shapes the banks. Returning to the ocean. Than to the sky. To fall as rain, and this is why; life cycles from one to the next, to live in manner determined by the last. The actions taken shaped the banks, and the river flows on. Such is the nature of self.
My understanding of "no self" is rooted in a part of the "Dighanikaya" which describes the four-stage transition from loving-kindness to compassion to sympathetic joy for others and ultimately to a state of equanimity; the practitioner is no longer concerned about personal feelings but the mastery of what can be called a higher realm. This interpretation makes sense to me, anyway.
Very interesting! I had a realization recently regardless no-self/emptiness. In Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche’s book, The Joy of Living, he compares the fundamental nature of self and reality to the openness of space in the Universe in which planets and other phenomena arise. Even on the micro level, there would be no matter without the space between atoms and subatomic particles. Space or “nothingness” is literally what creates the sensory objects of reality. The mind or “self” is the same, fundamentally. All of its traits, characteristics, qualities, experiences, etc. are simply transitory arisings in that emptiness of space which connects all reality. For some reason this makes sense to me now!
Thank you Doug again for a very insightful discussion! I think lots of Buddhists really don’t understand the true meaning of non-self - this discussion helps us all to clarify any doubts ! May you be well ! 🙏
Hi,Doug! I've been listening to your videos lately and I love them. I practice yoga and meditation but I do appreciate the Buddhist philosophy. You have a new subscriber here! Namaste
Thank you Doug for the insightful reflective discussion. A few observations relevant to the topic: * The Anatta or Non Self is sort of anti ego-centricism. There's no exclusive core essence to our existence, there's nothing independent or separate in our being. Our existence is a manifestation of a set of conditions. The well being of the Nama - Rupa or the Body - Mind (sense consciousness, sensations, perception, the formations) system is our foremost duty & responsibility to be done with the attitude of humility. * The Metta or the loving concern has to begin with ourselves and subsequently to be directed outwards to other beings & environment / situations/ contexts etc. Thank you again for creating the opportunity to discuss Dhamma.
Thanks Doug. It's worth noting, I think, that at first we tend to pursue any beneficial activity or practice in life selfishly - to enjoy its benefits in a narrowly-focused way. But when we begin flowing in that pursued activity or practice, our self-consciousness then disappears. And if selfishness somehow returns and dominates, then we cannot continue to be absorbed in flow state. Thus, if we indulge in Buddhist self-love meditation until we enter into Samadhi absorption, for example, then in fact our self-love will not be of the 'selfish' sort - it will be involving a much broader sense of self (that Zen Master Shunryu Suzuki called 'Big Self,' for example) - which incorporates all of nature's various selves as they co-dependently arise as a kind of Oneness.
Thanks so much for another great Video Doug. I would like a video by you about boundaries for Buddhists. I always wonder about unlimited compassion turning into co-dependency when it comes to real world relationships with family, a significant other or work relationships. Thanks
Hi, Doug! As always, your videos are fodder for contemplation and clarity. Your channel really is a loving and sophisticated service to the dhamma! Gotta say I somewhat disagree with King Prasenadi. People can act impulsively and amorally while erroneously believing that they are taking care of themselves (loving themselves). Until they see the real effect of their actions, they can be mislead by short term gain to think they are handling life fairly and appropriately. When we see that impulsivity for maladaptive behavior and immaturity, that's when we realize the truth behind our behaviors and thoughts. I can imagine a person with severe addiction to outer or inner harm--knowing that it is bad but having little success or impetus to stop their behavior--might have feelings of self-hate. Still, our addictions have a way of making us feel like we are taking care of ourselves at that moment. Even bodily self-harm has a way of giving a release. Seems the self-love that the Buddha and Buddhagosa referred to is a sense of filling one's cup without desperately seeking outwardly for gratification and release. I'm curious to know what other viewers think about Prasenadi's realization.
Yes interesting points! I think King Pasenadi might say that such a person doesn't really love themselves if they act towards themselves maladaptively and immaturely. That is, they are deluded or confused into mistaking non-love for love.
@@DougsDharma Cool! I agree that self harm comes from a confusion about what is beneficial to the self, but to call that self-hate is too strong. Can't imagine telling someone causing loads of trouble for themselves, "This is just self-hate" would be an effective way to help them. Because it isn't self-hate. By the way, interesting tidbit in the video about Buddhagosa being the first (that we know of) to recommend building metta by first giving it to one's self. We'll probably never know, but I wonder if this was a practice meditation teachers used for years before Buddhagosa suggested it.
2 things come to my mind. 1st, I have read or heard somewhere the Buddha mentioned about "Pabhassara Citta". Then 2nd it's about the 5 skandhas: body (rupa) and mind (vedana, samjna, sankhara, and vijnana). It seems to me Samjna will always follow you. It plays an integral part of who one is, how one thinks, how one behaves, etc. It doesn't matter whether those samjna are significant or insignificant or whether they are recent or so long time ago that one has forgotten. They still have some influences, subconsciously maybe. My thinking is since I'm still here in this samsara?, I ought to have some "self love" understanding samjna and sankhara and trying to get least sufferings as possible 😁
Thank you. I'm still in the process of understanding the 5 skandhas too 😄. I have been taught --- "figuratively speaking or literally 🤔" - "we" are 5 skandhas - rupa, vedana, samjna, sankhara, and vijnana. For easier to understand maybe, these 5 can be grouped into 2 (rupa) and (vedana, samjna, sankhara, vijnana) I don't know what they call - rupa and nama ? or body and mind ? or ? But body does not literally mean the "body" only. I have read about 28 rupa(s) or something.
Body, speech, and mind. That phrase, kayavakcitta in Sanskrit, grows in Buddhism perhaps reaching its pinnacle in the Hevajra Tantra. Maybe you could do a piece on it, I'm sure there's always more.
My question is the following: as a secular atheist I don't believe in nirvana, I just think bhuddism is useful in the reduction of suffering, Do you believe in nirvana? (As an actual permanent state of conciusness.)
I think you should rather call it confidence in your abilities and self acceptance, like not developing a negative opinion about yourself because you have flaws you need to work on. Yes, in the end you need to let go ALL opinions and mental constructs about your person go to archieve liberation, but that's the end goal. On the way there it's important to cultivate mental images that help you on the path vs reducing mental concepts that are harmful.
Hello mr Doug, I vastly appreciate your approach and format towards this topic. I wanted to leave this comment because I find my self confused. From a Buddhist perspective it seems to me that life is valuable, empathy and love, promoting wellbeing seems central to the teaching. However on the other hand there is the concept of endless rebirth, getting unlimited chances untill we escape sansara. Having endless chances to live again untill you get it right however, kind of negates the value of life, of effort, morality makes no sense. Horrible actions don't have permanent consequences and good actions can always be postponed. How does Buddhism maintain this kind of outlook towards life while also advocating the concept of unlimited rebirth, of unlimited chances. Even hells are not permanent in Buddhism and in the scheme of eternity, centuries or milenia of punishment seem inconsequential, eventually the one punished will be reborn. I'd very much like your input on this. Thank you in advance.
As a secular practitioner I leave aside questions of rebirth as speculative. That said, the whole idea of Indian religions generally is to try to escape the endless round of rebirth by understanding its cause.
@@DougsDharma A very grounded outlook, thank you for your reply. I just cannot help but wonder if anyone at the time of the Buddha or the Buddha himself, since from what I gather he wasn't exactly secular, tackles this kind of outlook "if I get unlimited chances, why bother do anything, there are no stakes, what does morality matter, there are no eternal consequences for or of bad actions, I can always try to find the path in another lifetime". Seems like an excuse to get away with doing anything or not doing anything at all 😂. Is there anything pertaining to this topic in the texts? Thank you once again for your reply, I was very happy to see the notification.
To be honest I think the "self-love" as the term is known today is a very unhelpful way of perceiving things or just a view in general. Many people love themselves by default. People are naturally selfish and self serving just by natural instinct which all people have. At least in my perception Buddhism seems to be prescribing not to value self-love, or directing to love oneself. I think it is actually trying to teach people to stop loving self too much. And when you love not the self but love others, then THEN the right kind of "self love" happens. I would say it it is more accurately described as "higher self respect" almost. Coincidentally, I think the Christians identify the problem similarly, which is that people are loving the self too much when they should love others more and sacrifice self for the others similar to how Jesus Christ did (I am not preaching, but stating what they believe) and the prescription for dealing with this is similar as well , which is to avoid accumulating wealth, and avoid caring too much about self, including caring too much about one's own beauty, which is just self serving vanity. That is why people, for good reasons, think that maybe Jesus Christ or whoever taught the writers of the Bible may have encountered Buddhists at some point in life and then changed the teachings to adapt to Judeo Christian view. Of course in practice and in theology Christians aren't the same as Buddhists at all. But if you look at the early monastic orders of Christians then they are very similar.
The word "self" doesn't mean the same thing every time it is used just because it has the same four letters. Two people will say "self" and mean different things.
If there is no self how is it that the Buddha acquired the indestructible adamantine body, (Tibetan vajra body, Taoist diamond or golden body, Nath siddhis divine body) If there were no self what use would an indistructable body be. In the teaching on the Adamantine body of the Buddha the statement is made that the ordinary person has not this kind of body, it is something to be acquired
@@DougsDharma I am not sure how Buddhists obtain this body but the Nath siddhis and Taoists create it by infusing the body with an alchemical elixir produced either internally or externally
Great question. The honest answer is there isn't, there can't be. After studying Chan Buddhism for 15 years and plenty of Zen too, I've never read the word love, or hate for that matter. Compassion that arises from this could be described as love, but then such conceptual opposites are all negated...
Hello Doug, about alaya vijnana in yogacara (mahayana school). How many alaya vijnana are there in the whole world? Is there only one for all Sentient beings as Brahman in hinduism? or are there as many alaya vijnana as there are Sentient beings ?
Well to my mind this is a philosophical notion, a construct, so it depends on how it was constructed. My guess is that there would be one per sentient being, since the karma of each being is independent of the others.
Hinduism is a misnomer, not a religion. People who live in Hindus/Indus valley are called Hindu/Hindi. The term was first used by the Persian people around the 2nd century. Hinduism we know today is a cluster of Brahmanism and vedantic religions.
sir can you confirm that sariputta in his last visit before parinibbana said that "we dont believe in rebirth , this is me having last sighting of yours" like i read in buddha and his dhamma by dr b.r ambedkar book of navayana if thats the case then buddha really was talking about rebirth of matter and energy and not of man itself
Ambedkar had his own version of Buddhism, created by him. Name "navayana" speaks for itself. Or perhaps he had his Navayana, (new vehicle) and put a Buddhist label on it. He is a very confusing and contradictory character.
Hi Doug! If jhana is a pre-buddhist practice and the buddha was familliar with it before his enlightenment. So what was the special difference of its last jhanna (just before his enlightenment other than jhanna practices he did before) that leads him to enlightenment?
All of these are speculative questions, and I don't know that there are good answers to them. Is jhāna pre-Buddhist? Hard to say for sure. There is scholarly disagreement. If it is pre-Buddhist, perhaps it lacked the insight awareness that the Buddha brought to it. Or perhaps jhāna isn't pre-Buddhist. Impossible to say for sure I think.
The Buddha said to Kasyapa: "Do not say that the body of the Tathagata is not strong, can easily be broken, and is the same as that of common mortals. O good man! Know that the body of the Tathagata is as indestructible as that which stands for countless billions of kalpas."
Have you ever heard of the Lotus Sutra? Or Nichiren Daishonin or Soka Gakkai International?. I'd call it a sect. I've practiced Buddhism 46 years in this group.
Without Doug Self how there can be anything? how there can be Buddha? how there can be any color? how there can be this word? But what is Doug Self? Doug Self is not different from Buddha Self! Be Buddha Self! ⭕
Buddhism is obsolete for much of humanity. The collective influence has been achieved. Human relational dynamics have evolved beyond the principles of Buddhist relational skills. Morphic resonance and collective integration has given rise to other forms of enlightenment like psychology and other self reflective practices. Some of Buddhism still applies, but the human culture has evolved, enlightened humans have incorporated more refined relational skills, and those skills have replaced or superceded some Buddhist ideals. A sense of self has become more dynamic and defineable in a healthy way. I think many Buddhist need to recognize this.
buddha says self love for sex is illusion suffer and self love for serve othes is humanity good karma most of all this world is full of misery you have to raft this world that's buddhist moto not gain heaven or hell like other religion
🧡 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 book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
Let's say there are 2 selves.
1. The person with his habits and specific attributes.
2. The soul which is not in the body, but received as a signal (just like a radio receives the signal).
We are a combination of both. The most repeated passage in ancient poli is "isa kaia nami sata" which means is "this is not the soul". It is just showing what the soul is not and not referring to the idea that there is no soul. The soul is not the body, but its recieved by it.
"Play your part in the comedy, but don't identify yourself with your role!" "We do not possess an 'ego.' We are possessed by the idea of one." - Wei Wu Wei
🙏😊
Sheesh, I love that! But then, on the other hand, possession is 90% of the law…😮
Thanks Doug. I deeply appreciate your approach and analysis of Buddhist philosophy. A river changes day by day. Bound by banks as it make’s its way. The banks shape the river. The river shapes the banks. Returning to the ocean. Than to the sky. To fall as rain, and this is why; life cycles from one to the next, to live in manner determined by the last. The actions taken shaped the banks, and the river flows on. Such is the nature of self.
🙏😊
Quickly becoming my favourite RUclips channel, thank you so much Doug, I've learned a lot from your videos. Life-changing stuff, truly
My understanding of "no self" is rooted in a part of the "Dighanikaya" which describes the four-stage transition from loving-kindness to compassion to sympathetic joy for others and ultimately to a state of equanimity; the practitioner is no longer concerned about personal feelings but the mastery of what can be called a higher realm. This interpretation makes sense to me, anyway.
I did a series of videos about the Brahmavihāras, from lovingkindness to equanimity: ruclips.net/p/PL0akoU_OszRi-PrNLubfI0LVwkjXbZ-c7
Notion of no self can be attained after experiencing insight knowledge which is higher level of understanding the emptiness..
Great explaination 👍🌷
Very interesting! I had a realization recently regardless no-self/emptiness. In Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche’s book, The Joy of Living, he compares the fundamental nature of self and reality to the openness of space in the Universe in which planets and other phenomena arise. Even on the micro level, there would be no matter without the space between atoms and subatomic particles. Space or “nothingness” is literally what creates the sensory objects of reality. The mind or “self” is the same, fundamentally. All of its traits, characteristics, qualities, experiences, etc. are simply transitory arisings in that emptiness of space which connects all reality. For some reason this makes sense to me now!
🙏😊
Thank you Doug again for a very insightful discussion! I think lots of Buddhists really don’t understand the true meaning of non-self - this discussion helps us all to clarify any doubts !
May you be well ! 🙏
🙏😊
Hi,Doug! I've been listening to your videos lately and I love them. I practice yoga and meditation but I do appreciate the Buddhist philosophy. You have a new subscriber here! Namaste
Thank you! 🙏😊
Thank you Doug for the insightful reflective discussion. A few observations relevant to the topic:
* The Anatta or Non Self is sort of anti ego-centricism. There's no exclusive core essence to our existence, there's nothing independent or separate in our being. Our existence is a manifestation of a set of conditions.
The well being of the Nama - Rupa or the Body - Mind (sense consciousness, sensations, perception, the formations) system is our foremost duty & responsibility to be done with the attitude of humility.
* The Metta or the loving concern has to begin with ourselves and subsequently to be directed outwards to other beings & environment / situations/ contexts etc.
Thank you again for creating the opportunity to discuss Dhamma.
My pleasure. 🙏
Thanks Doug. It's worth noting, I think, that at first we tend to pursue any beneficial activity or practice in life selfishly - to enjoy its benefits in a narrowly-focused way. But when we begin flowing in that pursued activity or practice, our self-consciousness then disappears. And if selfishness somehow returns and dominates, then we cannot continue to be absorbed in flow state.
Thus, if we indulge in Buddhist self-love meditation until we enter into Samadhi absorption, for example, then in fact our self-love will not be of the 'selfish' sort - it will be involving a much broader sense of self (that Zen Master Shunryu Suzuki called 'Big Self,' for example) - which incorporates all of nature's various selves as they co-dependently arise as a kind of Oneness.
Thanks for your thoughts. 🙏
Thanks so much for another great Video Doug. I would like a video by you about boundaries for Buddhists. I always wonder about unlimited compassion turning into co-dependency when it comes to real world relationships with family, a significant other or work relationships. Thanks
Thanks Amira, I'll put it on the list! 🙏
@Jill thanks! 🌸
@Jill I found this simple, good talk on the subject of boundaries ruclips.net/video/YZQEHU1FSJ0/видео.html
Hi, Doug! As always, your videos are fodder for contemplation and clarity. Your channel really is a loving and sophisticated service to the dhamma!
Gotta say I somewhat disagree with King Prasenadi. People can act impulsively and amorally while erroneously believing that they are taking care of themselves (loving themselves). Until they see the real effect of their actions, they can be mislead by short term gain to think they are handling life fairly and appropriately. When we see that impulsivity for maladaptive behavior and immaturity, that's when we realize the truth behind our behaviors and thoughts.
I can imagine a person with severe addiction to outer or inner harm--knowing that it is bad but having little success or impetus to stop their behavior--might have feelings of self-hate. Still, our addictions have a way of making us feel like we are taking care of ourselves at that moment. Even bodily self-harm has a way of giving a release.
Seems the self-love that the Buddha and Buddhagosa referred to is a sense of filling one's cup without desperately seeking outwardly for gratification and release. I'm curious to know what other viewers think about Prasenadi's realization.
Yes interesting points! I think King Pasenadi might say that such a person doesn't really love themselves if they act towards themselves maladaptively and immaturely. That is, they are deluded or confused into mistaking non-love for love.
@@DougsDharma Cool! I agree that self harm comes from a confusion about what is beneficial to the self, but to call that self-hate is too strong. Can't imagine telling someone causing loads of trouble for themselves, "This is just self-hate" would be an effective way to help them. Because it isn't self-hate.
By the way, interesting tidbit in the video about Buddhagosa being the first (that we know of) to recommend building metta by first giving it to one's self. We'll probably never know, but I wonder if this was a practice meditation teachers used for years before Buddhagosa suggested it.
Thank you. That has been my view on Anatma as well.
🙏😊
2 things come to my mind. 1st, I have read or heard somewhere the Buddha mentioned about "Pabhassara Citta". Then 2nd it's about the 5 skandhas: body (rupa) and mind (vedana, samjna, sankhara, and vijnana). It seems to me Samjna will always follow you. It plays an integral part of who one is, how one thinks, how one behaves, etc. It doesn't matter whether those samjna are significant or insignificant or whether they are recent or so long time ago that one has forgotten. They still have some influences, subconsciously maybe. My thinking is since I'm still here in this samsara?, I ought to have some "self love" understanding samjna and sankhara and trying to get least sufferings as possible 😁
Thank you. I'm still in the process of understanding the 5 skandhas too 😄. I have been taught --- "figuratively speaking or literally 🤔" - "we" are 5 skandhas - rupa, vedana, samjna, sankhara, and vijnana. For easier to understand maybe, these 5 can be grouped into 2 (rupa) and (vedana, samjna, sankhara, vijnana) I don't know what they call - rupa and nama ? or body and mind ? or ? But body does not literally mean the "body" only. I have read about 28 rupa(s) or something.
Much love and meow from Germany! ❤️🐱❤️
🙏😊🙏😊
I always scroll through the comments on Doug's videos to find yours, may you be well!
@@chriskaplan6109
Thanks a lot, Chris! Meow you be well, too! 🐱🙏
Body, speech, and mind. That phrase, kayavakcitta in Sanskrit, grows in Buddhism perhaps reaching its pinnacle in the Hevajra Tantra. Maybe you could do a piece on it, I'm sure there's always more.
Thank you!
You're welcome! 😊
My question is the following: as a secular atheist I don't believe in nirvana, I just think bhuddism is useful in the reduction of suffering, Do you believe in nirvana? (As an actual permanent state of conciusness.)
I don't really know. As you say, the Buddhist practices are useful in reducing suffering, and that's enough.
This is Timely I Like your channel Doug👌
Thanks so much! 👍
I had a teacher once say, "Why is self-love such a big deal nowadays? It's because a lot of people hate themselves." Sadly I find this to be true.
Be a 'light.'
🙏😊
"Atta Dipa Bhava". 😊🙏
I think you should rather call it confidence in your abilities and self acceptance, like not developing a negative opinion about yourself because you have flaws you need to work on. Yes, in the end you need to let go ALL opinions and mental constructs about your person go to archieve liberation, but that's the end goal. On the way there it's important to cultivate mental images that help you on the path vs reducing mental concepts that are harmful.
🙏😊
Hello mr Doug, I vastly appreciate your approach and format towards this topic.
I wanted to leave this comment because I find my self confused. From a Buddhist perspective it seems to me that life is valuable, empathy and love, promoting wellbeing seems central to the teaching. However on the other hand there is the concept of endless rebirth, getting unlimited chances untill we escape sansara. Having endless chances to live again untill you get it right however, kind of negates the value of life, of effort, morality makes no sense. Horrible actions don't have permanent consequences and good actions can always be postponed. How does Buddhism maintain this kind of outlook towards life while also advocating the concept of unlimited rebirth, of unlimited chances. Even hells are not permanent in Buddhism and in the scheme of eternity, centuries or milenia of punishment seem inconsequential, eventually the one punished will be reborn. I'd very much like your input on this. Thank you in advance.
As a secular practitioner I leave aside questions of rebirth as speculative. That said, the whole idea of Indian religions generally is to try to escape the endless round of rebirth by understanding its cause.
@@DougsDharma A very grounded outlook, thank you for your reply. I just cannot help but wonder if anyone at the time of the Buddha or the Buddha himself, since from what I gather he wasn't exactly secular, tackles this kind of outlook "if I get unlimited chances, why bother do anything, there are no stakes, what does morality matter, there are no eternal consequences for or of bad actions, I can always try to find the path in another lifetime". Seems like an excuse to get away with doing anything or not doing anything at all 😂. Is there anything pertaining to this topic in the texts? Thank you once again for your reply, I was very happy to see the notification.
To be honest I think the "self-love" as the term is known today is a very unhelpful way of perceiving things or just a view in general. Many people love themselves by default. People are naturally selfish and self serving just by natural instinct which all people have. At least in my perception Buddhism seems to be prescribing not to value self-love, or directing to love oneself. I think it is actually trying to teach people to stop loving self too much. And when you love not the self but love others, then THEN the right kind of "self love" happens. I would say it it is more accurately described as "higher self respect" almost. Coincidentally, I think the Christians identify the problem similarly, which is that people are loving the self too much when they should love others more and sacrifice self for the others similar to how Jesus Christ did (I am not preaching, but stating what they believe) and the prescription for dealing with this is similar as well , which is to avoid accumulating wealth, and avoid caring too much about self, including caring too much about one's own beauty, which is just self serving vanity. That is why people, for good reasons, think that maybe Jesus Christ or whoever taught the writers of the Bible may have encountered Buddhists at some point in life and then changed the teachings to adapt to Judeo Christian view. Of course in practice and in theology Christians aren't the same as Buddhists at all. But if you look at the early monastic orders of Christians then they are very similar.
🙏
The word "self" doesn't mean the same thing every time it is used just because it has the same four letters. Two people will say "self" and mean different things.
For sure.
If there is no self how is it that the Buddha acquired the indestructible adamantine body, (Tibetan vajra body, Taoist diamond or golden body, Nath siddhis divine body) If there were no self what use would an indistructable body be. In the teaching on the Adamantine body of the Buddha the statement is made that the ordinary person has not this kind of body, it is something to be acquired
Good question, I'm not sure how to interpret such a body by earlier Buddhist standards. It might be a subtle interpretation of emptiness?
@@DougsDharma I am not sure how Buddhists obtain this body but the Nath siddhis and Taoists create it by infusing the body with an alchemical elixir produced either internally or externally
please i want to start reading Sutta Pitaka
can you please tell me how to start and there list🙂
Check out my video on the Pāli Canon and the links in the description box below. ruclips.net/video/YIcnCqOALPs/видео.html
@@DougsDharma Thank you very much
Great question. The honest answer is there isn't, there can't be. After studying Chan Buddhism for 15 years and plenty of Zen too, I've never read the word love, or hate for that matter. Compassion that arises from this could be described as love, but then such conceptual opposites are all negated...
Hey Doug, can you do a video on the two Nibanna elements please? 😁
See if this answers your question ... let me know. 😊 ruclips.net/video/E-X2HLXL8ug/видео.html
@@DougsDharma yeah Doug that's amazing thanks for sharing!
Hello Doug, about alaya vijnana in yogacara (mahayana school). How many alaya vijnana are there in the whole world? Is there only one for all Sentient beings as Brahman in hinduism? or are there as many alaya vijnana as there are Sentient beings ?
Well to my mind this is a philosophical notion, a construct, so it depends on how it was constructed. My guess is that there would be one per sentient being, since the karma of each being is independent of the others.
Sir I have a question. If budhism is older than Hinduism, Why western historians are quiet about this.
Well Hinduism arose out of the much earlier practices of Vedic Brahmanism, which predate Buddhism by a millennium or so.
Hinduism is a misnomer, not a religion. People who live in Hindus/Indus valley are called Hindu/Hindi. The term was first used by the Persian people around the 2nd century. Hinduism we know today is a cluster of Brahmanism and vedantic religions.
🙏
🙏😊
sir can you confirm that sariputta in his last visit before parinibbana said that
"we dont believe in rebirth , this is me having last sighting of yours" like i read in buddha and his dhamma by dr b.r ambedkar book of navayana
if thats the case then buddha really was talking about rebirth of matter and energy and not of man itself
I don't know where that statement is found in the early suttas. Do you have a reference?
Ambedkar had his own version of Buddhism, created by him. Name "navayana" speaks for itself. Or perhaps he had his Navayana, (new vehicle) and put a Buddhist label on it. He is a very confusing and contradictory character.
Hi Doug! If jhana is a pre-buddhist practice and the buddha was familliar with it before his enlightenment. So what was the special difference of its last jhanna (just before his enlightenment other than jhanna practices he did before) that leads him to enlightenment?
All of these are speculative questions, and I don't know that there are good answers to them. Is jhāna pre-Buddhist? Hard to say for sure. There is scholarly disagreement. If it is pre-Buddhist, perhaps it lacked the insight awareness that the Buddha brought to it. Or perhaps jhāna isn't pre-Buddhist. Impossible to say for sure I think.
The Buddha said to Kasyapa: "Do not say that the body of the Tathagata is not strong, can easily be broken, and is the same as that of common mortals. O good man! Know that the body of the Tathagata is as indestructible as that which stands for countless billions of kalpas."
Where is that from?
@@DougsDharma The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, chapter V, on the Adamantine body of the Buddha
Self love - self = Love
🙏
Have you ever heard of the Lotus Sutra? Or Nichiren Daishonin or Soka Gakkai International?. I'd call it a sect. I've practiced Buddhism 46 years in this group.
Sure, welcome!
Can you please talk about the acashic record
Without Doug Self
how there can be anything?
how there can be Buddha?
how there can be any color?
how there can be this word?
But what is Doug Self?
Doug Self is not different from Buddha Self!
Be Buddha Self!
⭕
Buddhism is obsolete for much of humanity. The collective influence has been achieved. Human relational dynamics have evolved beyond the principles of Buddhist relational skills. Morphic resonance and collective integration has given rise to other forms of enlightenment like psychology and other self reflective practices. Some of Buddhism still applies, but the human culture has evolved, enlightened humans have incorporated more refined relational skills, and those skills have replaced or superceded some Buddhist ideals. A sense of self has become more dynamic and defineable in a healthy way. I think many Buddhist need to recognize this.
Scientists say there is no self humm and they are supposed to be smart yeah right
Master YongHua says PHD is no good. We all sit like toothpicks and don't listen to you.
buddha says self love for sex is illusion suffer and self love for serve othes is humanity good karma most of all this world is full of misery you have to raft this world that's buddhist moto not gain heaven or hell like other religion
ruclips.net/video/TtDG6ljhGkg/видео.html
S...n....goeka
Dhamm speech in English