🧡 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 🙂
Doug, this is the kind of dharma talk I needed to hear. And it is also an indictment on a mistake I have wanted to address. I will seek out the source material on this topic. Thank you so much.
@@DougsDharma : Hi Doug. Are Sati and the Buddha talking about the existence of the soul here? If so, then since the Buddha is saying soul doesn’t exist, according to him what gets reincarnated?
I bought a great little book called “The Buddha’s Doctrine of Anatta - A Comparative Study of Self and Not-Self in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Western Philosophy” by Buddhadasa. I got it from Amazon, but it is freely available in PDF on the web if you do a search.
@@senerzen the book talks about many conceptions of self and how all fail. That said, I understand why you think what you do. One of the themes of my comments to Doug’s videos is that the canon clearly grew in the telling. In fact,, a couple of days ago, I mentioned nirvana as being a case in point. It went from the cessation of greed, hatred, and delusion to the unborn etc…I believe the canon was authored by many people. Many of whom, no doubt misunderstood or disagreed with earlier doctrine. I bracket out the unborn section as a much latter addition. The early canon does not hint at an ultimate self. There is only the 5 aggregates. But without my bracketing out the unborn section, I see your point.
Thanks for the recommendation. Buddhadhasa is one of my favorite writers (Mindfulness with Breathing, among several others), yet, I have somehow missed the one you suggest. The subject is among my favorite and relevant (and confusing!). I have come to believe that Buddha Dharma denies even the ''Big I'' (Brahman) of Vedanta and leaves us with a very stark perspective. It is one of the main reasons I cannot buy the ''Perennial Philosophy'' perspective despite its fuzzy comforts. To have Buddhadhasa directly address the confusion will make for an incredible read! Addendum: Amazon does not currently have this gem, but, as you note, it is available in PDF on the web. I have glanced through it and it is absolutely of the essence of one of my central interests (exceeded only by my interest in books on the ''nuts and bolts'' of Buddhist meditation and the means to access the book of my own citta in which the answers are already ''written''!). Thanks again for a recommendation that has filled me with energy and inspiration. Metta!
Dear Sir,I am super impressed by your understanding about these kind of rare subtle deep Dhamma phenomena. Same the Name is not just 'sathi' it has to be 'saathi'. Becuase there is a word call 'sathi' means mindfulness. May you be free from all suffering with the infinite blessings from noble triple gems.!
"There is no bodhi tree, nor is there a mirror. In truth, all is void. Where can dust fall?" I hadn't heard the specific phrasing Eye Consciousness before, and I immediately thought of "ineluctable modality of the visible: at least that if no more, thought through my eyes," from Ulysses. We know Joyce had an interest in Buddhism, I wonder if it influenced that passage.
Great presentation. Very thoughtful. But after 20 years studying Buddhism, I now tend towards agreement with the wayward monk. As a student now of Vedanta, I feel like h finally making progress spiritually. Don’t get me wrong, i love the Buddhadharma. But there is a simplicity to the Upanishad model. Tat Vam Asi, Thou Art That. From a philosophical perspective, think of Ochams Razor. Also, in regards later Buddhism, they also brought in the notion of Buddha Nature, and Tathatagatagarba, in addition to the Tibetan LuminousMind (maybe the same idea). Its as if later Buddhism, perhaps in competition with the veda tradition for popular support, made a course correction away from the Buddhas philosophically austere, almost nihilistic, model for awakening.
calvin: The Budha was very clear that neither nihilism nor eternalism are right view. However, this is kind of canoying to a lot of peole, because he is speaking in negative terms only and refuses to be pinned down on issues that most people care about. People want to ewither believe that there is something in us that lasts forever or, failing that, that when we die we just die and cease to exist. Buddha says that both those views are wrong. He actualy does tells us how he belives (Some) things really work, in some cases. It Other times, he say it is a waist of time to even thyink about it because it does not contribute to the ceasation of suffering. But is pretty complicated. So it is pretty undesrstanadble that later schools of Buddhism would create some form of eternalism. But in theearlyest Buddhist texts he is very clear that there is nothing anywhere in the universe that is permanent. That is not very comforting, unless you really fully and completly grasp it. But just becasue somethinmg is coplex, subtle, and hard to grasp does not mean that it is wrong. Sceince confirms the Buddhas view, that there is nothing in the universe that does not decay, that does not change forms. Furthermore, udha points out gthat not only is everything going to change, but everything is changing constantly and so quickly that it can not be said to evan exist at all, in the way that we think it does. And of course, that aplies to us, too.
Vedic religion was not the popular religion in India..It was Buddhism which was the state religion most of the time..or the Puranic Religion which was opposed to Upanishads.. Upanishads were never a popular text in India..its only in recent years that they gained popularity
@@milascave2 I think you are confused here, Absoluteness is Hinduism is beyond mind and senses , It’s beyond materialism . Death, rebirth all these are modifications of nature . Human being should eliminate ego to attain the state of absoluteness .
@@DougsDharmathe taghāgatagarbha is an interesting concept. However the Mādhyamaka notion of emptiness is represented by yhe Buddha nature is something which was to explain off the tathāgatagarbha is a passage addressing this concept in the Lankāvatāra (one may consult Either Suzuki's or Red Pine's translations. I follow your works as well sir! Especially for Early Buddhist Doctrines to Theravada Vibhajyavādins and some early Schools of Abhidhamma. The Pudgalavāda school of Vāstuputrīyas is interesting too (it was raken up for refutation by Vasubandhu in the Abhidharmakoshabhashya, thw Sarvāstivāda Vaibhāsika manual with Sautrāntika inclinations, criticized by Sangabhadra and defended by Sthiramati, and also a detailed refutation of soul is given by Vasubandhu in the Ātmapratisedha Namah Sivāya
It would be interesting to compare the Buddha's view with Avecina's "Floating man" thought experiment. Avecina thought that a person disconnected from all sense stimuli, will still be conscious of something, the person will still be self-aware. He then tries to use this thought experiment to argue for the existence of the soul.
Indian philosophy traditionally enumerates 6 senses, the usual 5 plus 1 for the mental faculty. The object of mind-consciousness would be mental phenomena like feeling, perceptions, and thoughts/ideas. In other words, I think the Buddha was respond to Avicenna that he didn't account for the mind as a sense which is continually receiving input internally but which is ultimately empty of essence...so the Buddha would remain consistent with the theory of non-self.
Yes well in the thought experiment as Pranav suggests there is still mental consciousness, aware of thoughts. Thoughts arise and pass. This doesn't however argue for the existence of a soul so much as it argues for the existence of thoughts that are impermanent and subject to continual change.
Very good lecture. After many years of practicing maintaining awareness from the waking state into falling asleep to the dreaming state of sleep. One thing had become clear there was my consciousness which had developed with my experiences and was in control. But there was a another that was the watcher behind it all. Whatever you want to call it a soul i dont have the words other somehow i was apart of this silent witness and yet somehow felt separate.
Very interesting! As you have mentioned the term 'unborn', may you elaborate a bit on the idea of the 'unborn' that exists in the zen (and probably other) schools? I have heard about the 'unborn' in reference to the methaphor (or maybe rinzai koan) of '(which was) your face before your parents met?'
Interesting question Sletty. I think the "unborn" is similar to the "unconditioned" that I did an earlier video on: ruclips.net/video/-Wz3N5IAGDM/видео.html
Hi Doug, Appreciate the video but the Sutta says 'sensing' (any one of the six senses) is dependent on the meeting of sense object, sense base and sense consciousness. It would be preferable not to use the word 'contact' as it is usually a translation of phassa - that which is born of ignorance. If sensing were to be dependent on phassa, then it would wrongly imply that arahantship equals annihilation, which is not the case. Sorry if it's a little specific with regard to translation of the terminology used but just for the sake of better clarity :) Metta
Hi Dicson, contact isn't born of ignorance, it's central to consciousness. See for example MN 18.16: "Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting of the three is contact." suttacentral.net/mn18/en/sujato . Ignorance manifests after contact has arisen, when we grasp after the thing perceived, or when we misperceive.
@@DougsDharma Hi Doug, what I meant to say was that without ignorance at the root of dependent co-arising, there would not be contact. The meeting of sense object, sense base and sense consciousness that are simultaneously present according to dependent co-arising is a *condition* for contact. There can be meeting of the three without contact but there cannot be contact without meeting of the three. Just like feeling is a condition for craving and there cannot be craving without feeling but there can be feeling without craving. I would refer to MN 9 (suttacentral.net/mn9/en/sujato) and MN 79 (suttacentral.net/mn79/en/sujato)
When you say "over the years and centuries and millennia of Buddhism, other ideas have taken the place of this consciousness in the Buddha Dharma, as a potential ground of our continuation. And one of these ideas springs out of the concept of the luminous mind." Another idea, introduced by Buddhagosa in the Visuddhimagga, speaks of "rebirth consciousness" that goes from one lifetime to the next. What interests me about this idea is the way it is used in the teaching of dependent origination. In this case, it is dependent origination over three lifetimes; the first two links are experienced in the past lifetime, the next eight links are experienced in the present lifetime, and the last two links are experienced in the future lifetime. How can that be helpful in understanding the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination as it pertains to our lifetime now?
SCRIBD has a free 30-day trial where one can read a book about dependent origination in this lifetime. It is entitled Under the Bodhi Tree: Buddha's Original Vision of Dependent Co-arising by Ajahn Buddhadasa. One can also read the book Dread mentioned in his comment below. It's entitled “The Buddha’s Doctrine of Anatta - A Comparative Study of Self and Not-Self in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Western Philosophy” by Ajahn Buddhadasa.
Right, well traditionally "rebirth consciousness" isn't understood as a continuing thing, rather it's understood as a series of causal moments that essentially replace one another in a stream. As a secular practitioner though I leave aside questions about the purported mechanisms of rebirth.
My English is some what incorrect but i try my level best to explain what you being asked here. Hope you know 12 steps of dependent origination.fro Avijja (Ignorance to aging and death). If one sees the really of the existence as it really is That is call Vijja.(highest status of wisdom).at that moment Avijja Fade aways. Suppose a situation where you are in a darkest place.You can see nothing due to the invisibility.The moment you get proper lightning you can see clearly what around with you. Same way if we can develop our mind up to that level of wisdom we also can become enlightened. See in this very body we all possess here,within another few decades time will becomes peace of dust whether we like it or not.The same dust or the earth is being under tremendous amount of variation both good and bad.But we dont even notice them. Suppose if we can see through wisdom, that these very body of us and the 🌎 earth has no differences.Then you have nothing to over worry and to overjoy too. Same princpe applis to the mind. Then you tend to see this existence is just a flow of actions and reaction,just a process.There is nothing to be taken as me mine or my soul. Then in that state it is called as Vijja.then Avijja will fade away.from that remaining 12 parts of that link of dependent origination also not continue.
@@DougsDharma It wasn't until I read Under the Bodhi Tree that I understood dependent origination as taught by the Buddha. It has helped me immeasurably to understand self-view and non-self thus beginning the process of disenchantment and relinquishment of self-view.
Once my antagonist made the claim that he once improved the Buddha speech when he was the fisherman son. He has the black magic skill to be able to ‘transplant’ thoughts and actions from person to person. He goes from life to life by distributing his own thoughts and actions (karma) to other people and harvesting some of these back in his next life. I see this mind as an alien from a rocky planet that took possession of bodies (mostly humans) on earth. This is a different view on the fisherman son.
When a person thinks, is there a thinker who thinks thoughts or there is only thinking? There is only thinking. The act of thinking produces a thinker who thinks and that is what we refer to as the self, but as the the Buddha points out this idea of a thinker (the self) is an illusion created and sustained by thinking. This illusion of a thinker is created by thinking and it tries to control. It tries to control fear, desire, anxiety, greed, all of which are the result of thinking. One thought tries to control another thought. The same goes for sensation. Is there an experiencer of sensation or there is only sensation? There is only sensation. This dualistic view of an experiencer and experience is also sustained by our language. When there is anger we say "I am angry" which implies a self who experiences anger, but the reality is there is only anger, not someone who is experiencing anger.
This is very interesting because a common believe, these days, is that a person’s essence is eternal. Hmmm wonder what is true, and also wonder how reincarnation could occur without persistent ‘ something. ‘
Right, well early Buddhist dharma denies the idea of an eternal essence in anything. Rebirth is said to occur dependent upon a series of causally interconnected states, though as a secular practitioner I leave aside speculative questions on the purported mechanisms of rebirth. What interests me more is this-life practice.
@@DougsDharma Doug, Thank you for the reply. This reminds me of my own view of reincarnation, which some folks find a bit odd. That is, ‘ I don’t know if reincarnation is a thing or not, but I makes no difference to me. I’m going to live my life as fully and properly as I can either way. ‘ It’s also fun two think of two possible ( of several cases ) : 1 you believe in reincarnation but it doesn’t happen ~ what are you going to do ? 2 you don’t believe in it, and gosh darn it ~ here you are finding yourself reincarnated ! If this reads as a bit humorous then my feelings are coming through. I know that I’m joyfully ignorant, but I do try to live the life ( well ) that I have now. Whatever does or doesn’t happen after that, I’ll just have to accept it. Thank you again for this interesting videos. They really make me think.
What Brihadaranyaka Upanushad refers to as SELF or Brahman is Transcendent Consciousness or Transpersonal Consciousness which is the ONE Consciousness which is outside of Space Time and Creation.It is the knower or witness but has no agency.The atma( individuated Consciousness) is identical to Brahman.It is unborn or uncreated and neither does it reincarnates.What reincarnates is the Subtle body(19 components)which contains the Karmic patterns(Samskaras).What in Buddhism is refered to as SHUNYATHA(non self)is identical to Brahman.There has to be an entity to be reborn or for rebirth.That entity that takes a new body is the Subtle body.Vedanta declares that as long as we think that we are the subtle body( due to ignorance and identification with Karma) we will reincarnate due to Dependent Arising.Once we realise we the Atma we will not take rebirth.Both Buddha and the Vedas are alluding to the same Transcendent Reality which is immortal and Bliss but themetaphors are opposite.
Thank you for this video. I am a bit confused. In the Thai forest tradition it is often said "Consciousness never dies", but it is also said that this consciousness is not personal. It is always there and only the Kilesa give the delusion of a self. I tried to figure this out and came to the conclusion that they could use this term to describe nibbana and some then say "pure consciousness" to it. I find that pretty confusing, because somehow it seems to contradict MN38. Some also say that there is more than one consciousness, the sensory consciousness (eyes, ears, nose, etc., Vinjana). And there is the citta that never dies. There is also something else outside of it called an "observer". In Tan Ajahn Dtun's biography I first read that this "observer" is Avija and I think that agrees with MN38. In some speeches of well-known Ajahns I have heard that consciousness (which never dies) should be in the heart and as I said, I have not yet found out. Maybe Nibbana is ment by it? But why not just call it Nibbana? Any suggestions ?
I'm really not sure Paññavaddhi. All I can say is that I've also had the same sense from some of the Thai forest tradition, and I know we're not the only ones who have that sense since I've read others who are equally confused. Of course, one can use the word "consciousness" and really mean something more like "emptiness" or "anatta"; it depends how it's interpreted.
If u can't understand and find yourself stuck in this you should leave it the truth exist by itself it is your own judgement which changes it you just focus on your path even Buddha was criticised by Brahmins and Brahmins multiple sects quarrel with each other Going into this will not do anything i have wasted 2 years searching through all philosophy but not Focused on path now i left that idea i am happy i am open up to new experience i am not limiting myself
I think this concept can be expanded upon. Consciousness is constantly being birthed and decayed in a sense yes. In this case the senses are used as examples. The consciousness of this eye, nose etc experiencing it's unique perspective in the universe which is constantly changing, each experience is being born and decaying moment to moment as time unfolds. My eye, your eye, each, the eye of a bee experiencing UV light, of an ants experiencing pheromones, a light receptor cell experiencing the impact of photons. A DNA strand of folding, the experience of an atom being drawn towards another atom etc. Consciousness in this view is not a content of the universe, it is an interdependent pre requisite component, each "piece" of the universe has a unique 'relative' lense of which to experience the rest, to varying degrees of complexity.
@@DougsDharma i guess that's what the buddha might be talking about 'acinteyya'?. one doesn't know oneself - self or non-self or something? i guess i better dig deep and look within keep peeling and perhaps find out. 🙂
If there is no such thing as a consolidated self/consciousness that continues, what is that "thing" that gets released from the cycle of birth and death upon attaining nirvana? I remember that you did a video on "what of us continues"? Mahayana acknowledge that there is a consciousness that continues, and some sects subdivide this consciousness into 8 parts (for deep doctrinal study purposes). Is it possible that there is a middle ground between these two opposing views?
Well the Mahāyāna interprets consciousness in many different ways, so there's no simple answer as to how to interpret it there. But any doctrine which claims that the same consciousness literally persists through time isn't compatible with early Buddhist dharma.
Maybe Buddha didn't wanted people to be dependent on something that's why he rejected self but he reached the same places which upanishads claim His teachings are contradicted in many ways even one statement atmo deepo bhava people took it as different on this basis divided themselves In one sutta he also said that i haven't told all the truths about what i know
In the backdrop of this thesis, can you please explain the relevance of reincarnation in Buddhism? In simpler words, 'what' or 'who' is then reborn, if nibbānā isn't attained? Not the the anatta, not the aggregates, then what?
There is nothing that is literally the same moment to moment in Buddhism; all things are always changing. This is the case for you today and tomorrow, it's also traditionally the case between lifetimes. All there is is a series of causally connected events. Check out my playlist on self and non-self for more: ruclips.net/p/PL0akoU_OszRjA9n0-U24ZCpfEQVFxeGz2
But how did Buddha knew all this that everything has cause he definitely knew it by himself that himself in him must be permanent to see everything temporary this is mind boggling can anyone give me a argument to this so i can understand more
In the past, I wasted a lot of time and energy trying to understand the concept of non-self. I reckon if the Buddha could see us today, he might regret he ever mentioned it. So much confusion, misunderstanding, wrong views and intellectualising. Sure, for some it seems important - fair enough - to each their own. But for me, the teaching of non-self was an obstacle in the sense that I could not understand it intellectually. I decided to give up trying to understand it and concentrate more on meditation. It is through meditation, not trying to figure it out intellectually, that I occasionally get a glimpse of what non-self is. Maybe some people who are smarter than me have had better luck. But I reckon, for me at least, that non self needs to be experienced to be understood.
Like you, I'm not an expert or intellectual but I agree completely. I say I'm not a "book Buddhist" in that I don't know the terms to explain Buddhism. Often I find that when I try to get answers through reading I end up with more questions than before. For now I'll try to find the answers myself. But should someone point out mistakes in my thinking that I can understand, I'm open to changing my thinking, too.
Well if you want to waste a little more time I have a whole playlist on non-self that might help a little, or might not! 😄 ruclips.net/p/PL0akoU_OszRjA9n0-U24ZCpfEQVFxeGz2
So I'm studying Yoga right now, and I think that you're misinterpreting the Upanishads a little bit here. All of the things that you mentioned, sight, smell, taste, etc, are all objects of consciousness, and are impermanent and changing. However, there is a belief that the ability to see or the power of consciousness is eternal. So from the Yogic perspective, no thing is eternal, but the light of consciousness is everpresent with or without objects of awareness to illuminate. In a similar sense, the vacuum of space appears dark, despite having the light of the sun moving through it. We can only see the light of the sun once it hits something. The light is always there, but there aren't always objects to illuminate. Now the mention of consciousness being the controller, I think is a view of the Upanishads and doesn't seem to carry forward into other Yogic philosophy that develops. I would agree that consciousness doesn't control the objects of awareness... But to be honest, I don't know what role consciousness actually plays. Anyways, thanks for this video, I always learn something new when you post, so I really appreciate it.
Sure! Yoga is based on millennia of development after the Upaniṣads, and to my knowledge there isn't much of a direct relationship between them. So I wouldn't necessarily assume that the Upaniṣadic view of the self is identical to that presented in classical Yoga. A good book about the history of Yoga is James Mallinson's Roots of Yoga. He is one of the real academic experts in the field.
Buddha blames Monk Sati's misunderstanding about consciousness; therefore, Buddha explains him what is His teaching. Also, Buddha blames Monk Malukya Putta and educates him. The reason why? Their misunderstanding is dangerous for others. Because they are monks and his pupils who need to understand the truth.
I think Lord Buddha did not talk about Non Self but rather Non Identification.. Not identifying with any description of self.. The vedantic description is also a form of Labeling of self..We can question that on what basis are the Upanishadic writers mentioning the qualities of the self? I think Buddhism is more of Non Identification than Non Self..
Well, at least the Buddhism of the early texts is both. The Buddha talks constantly of non-self (anatta), and one way to understand non-self is through non-identification. (Not-mine, not-I, not-myself).
I think by 3rd Jhanic state the monologues completely stop but the awareness is still there. Once you see the monologues disappear you are convinced that the thoughts are not me (because thoughts are born and die and can cease to exist). However, the awareness that is still left behind has no identification with self. The awareness watches over all monologues from a distance. I think this awareness is referred to as the knower/consciousness (vijanana) by both the Upanishads and the Buddha. Seems like the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad claimed that this 'knower' was unborn (as in it is ever present) but Buddha said that is not the case either. It can be easily seen that awareness disappears when one goes under anesthesia during a surgery and then reappears after the surgery. So Buddha was right about even awareness being conditioned. I just think you need to have a very advanced meditation skill with insights to see that awareness itself is not one but comes out of contacts with sense objects.
Rich discussion. Empty the heart and Sati will reveal itself. Sati is the precursor to mindfulness. "Why do I move"? From the view point of a returner per say. Would be different for a non returner. No doubt. Typical psychological hierarchy of both the East and the West. But I am drunk, lol.
Doug the consciousness that vedanta talks about is not vijnana, the emptiness or anatta of buddhism is the same as fullness or the ultimate reality referred to as atman in vedanta. The Buddha nature is exactly what vedantins call as Brahman, the self luminous light or chit (consciousness).
@Tridib_Barua_Tinkel yeah but look at what the very word Buddha means: the awakened one, the one who has permanently overcome samsara.. In sanskrit it literally means "that which has become aware".. now what is "that" ?
@@Shokirex Buddha said in the phenapindupama sutta that consciousness is like the magician's trick on the crossroads: it does not have an ultimate reality, not just once, he said many many times in the suttas that consciousness is dependently arisen and its proven by thousands of arhants over and over again. Scholars suggested not to translate word by word.
In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvaana sutta Buddha affirms the existence of the Eternal Self(including AND also beyond the five aggregates) -- thats what the upanishads talk of. The Buddha denied the induvidual self / ego -- not the Eternal Atman - he didn't even mention a thing about it. But enquire deeply into Niravaana -- what that state is. And enquire deeply into what the nature of Atman is -- the Advaitic. You won't find much difference. Buddha didn't go deep enough to touch the realm of Atman -- or he did. He certainly knew far more than what he taught. As he revealed once ton Ananda -- holding the leaves in his fist to demonstrate. And certainly many (especially Tibetan)Buddhist mystics affirmed the Self -- not scholars. Scholars themelves don't know anything -- no experiential realization. Only parroting Buddha's words, dry scriptures. They are far from Nirvaana. All these words cease there. Because it's beyond the mind's grasp -- scholasticism won't help. Meditation would.
Well this sounds more like a decision to rely on later scriptures (the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāna Sutra) rather than the earlier ones. That's fine, each of us has to find what resonates with our practice.
atman is not a belief. anyone with perfect single-pointed concentration sees awareness directly and it appears that way. the problem is it appears to exist that way unchangingly unless you actively challenge if it does
Sure, it's a concept that arises from hearing about it or from seeing it directly. It just happens to be an accurate description of the way all things are for the Buddha.
@@nkbguy2193 Well his teaching is to get rid of all attachment or identification with concepts or beliefs, not to get rid of the concepts or beliefs themselves. They can be very useful and accurate.
If there is no self, there is no suffering. Bcz there is no suffering, there is no escape from it. Buddhists are contradicting themselves. Analysis of Deep Sleep will get rid of wrong idea of "absence of Self".
Not sure about Buddhist teachings. He seems to endorse the view that Kings and wealthy lived noble lives in past lives and that is how they achieved their present positions. But we all know people like Kissinger, Bush, Rumsfeld who were war criminals and did quite well in this world. It is hard for me to believe they lived such noble lives in the past, and now suddenly became rather monstrous, yet still enjoying their good karma. I think the interpretation of Jesus or even that found in Bhagavad Gita more realistic. That human beings of wealth and privilege are often diabolical and that the blessed are often downtrodden. Also many times people need to engage in action against such a society and not assume the blessings will be there in the next lives. The Buddhist notion that to live ethically then you will build a great karma in the next life or lives seems silly judging how those that live ethically to some extent are not treated too well in human society. Also animals are often as loving as humans or even more so and we are to believe that human beings happened to become human because they are so much better. Look at the factory farms and the terror we allow as a society without blinking an eye. But in my view, many proclaim such wisdom in Buddhism, especially the secular, but it seems Buddhism has some big holes. Like proclaiming Karma, reincarnation, and non self together going on for endless lives when there is no substance at all. Either the notion of anything continuing is false and it all ends when the body dies, since the body has to be there for the various consciences, or there is something that continues even though it is constantly changing. I think the Buddha tried to have it both ways based on culture and beliefs of his time but the reasoning isn't there.
Thanks for that Grant. The whole idea in all Indian belief systems is that while one needs good karma to get a good life, one can then destroy that good karma by using that good life for ill purposes. Then you will fall back again to a life that's not so good later on. So people like those you mention may have behaved well in past lives, but they won't necessarily have great future ones. While I am a secular believer, in that I leave aside speculations about past and future lives, I think at least it's important to understand the traditional viewpoints.
@@DougsDharma thanks for your input Doug. Just one question if you will and then I will accept your answer and leave it at that. But if you are just talking ethics, like in the noble eight fold path and a view point from the noble truths, and unconcerned about not knowing the whole Buddhist preaching of karma, reincarnation, etc., Then wouldn't you be better off promoting a Machevellian view of the world as stated in the Prince because clearly, to me anyway, that an ethical life as proclaimed by what I believe a secular Buddhist would promote would leave people like sheep to be used and abused by the vast majority of humans with a pack mentality. Just experience a little office politics if you think this may not be true. But thanks for your kindness in responding and if you can respond to the points I mentioned. I will accept whatever you offer and we can leave it at that. I enjoy your channel.
@@grantlawrence611 Well it's rather like theists who claim that if there weren't a God they'd go around killing people. Really? Do we need to feel personally threatened in order not to do wrong? It's also important to keep in mind that many who DO believe in a God, or in active karma and rebirth, also do bad things. So if beliefs in God or rebirth are useful, they aren't always so. We can be good without them, and we can be bad with them.
🧡 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 🙂
❤ from 🇳🇵
Doug, this is the kind of dharma talk I needed to hear. And it is also an indictment on a mistake I have wanted to address. I will seek out the source material on this topic. Thank you so much.
Glad it was helpful Nico! 🙏
Another succinct and carefully-constructed presentation: thank-you!
You're very welcome Tony!
@@DougsDharma : Hi Doug. Are Sati and the Buddha talking about the existence of the soul here? If so, then since the Buddha is saying soul doesn’t exist, according to him what gets reincarnated?
I bought a great little book called “The Buddha’s Doctrine of Anatta - A Comparative Study of Self and Not-Self in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Western Philosophy” by Buddhadasa. I got it from Amazon, but it is freely available in PDF on the web if you do a search.
Thanks sounds authentic, and written by a monk who is an authority on Dharma truths.
Thanks for the tip Dread.
@@senerzen the book talks about many conceptions of self and how all fail. That said, I understand why you think what you do. One of the themes of my comments to Doug’s videos is that the canon clearly grew in the telling. In fact,, a couple of days ago, I mentioned nirvana as being a case in point. It went from the cessation of greed, hatred, and delusion to the unborn etc…I believe the canon was authored by many people. Many of whom, no doubt misunderstood or disagreed with earlier doctrine. I bracket out the unborn section as a much latter addition. The early canon does not hint at an ultimate self. There is only the 5 aggregates. But without my bracketing out the unborn section, I see your point.
Thanks for the recommendation. Buddhadhasa is one of my favorite writers (Mindfulness with Breathing, among several others), yet, I have somehow missed the one you suggest. The subject is among my favorite and relevant (and confusing!). I have come to believe that Buddha Dharma denies even the ''Big I'' (Brahman) of Vedanta and leaves us with a very stark perspective. It is one of the main reasons I cannot buy the ''Perennial Philosophy'' perspective despite its fuzzy comforts. To have Buddhadhasa directly address the confusion will make for an incredible read!
Addendum: Amazon does not currently have this gem, but, as you note, it is available in PDF on the web. I have glanced through it and it is absolutely of the essence of one of my central interests (exceeded only by my interest in books on the ''nuts and bolts'' of Buddhist meditation and the means to access the book of my own citta in which the answers are already ''written''!). Thanks again for a recommendation that has filled me with energy and inspiration. Metta!
You all seem like great people.
Dear Sir,I am super impressed by your understanding about these kind of rare subtle deep Dhamma phenomena.
Same the Name is not just 'sathi' it has to be 'saathi'. Becuase there is a word call 'sathi' means mindfulness.
May you be free from all suffering with the infinite blessings from noble triple gems.!
Yes that's right, it's just my misprounciation! 😄
"There is no bodhi tree,
nor is there a mirror.
In truth, all is void.
Where can dust fall?"
I hadn't heard the specific phrasing Eye Consciousness before, and I immediately thought of "ineluctable modality of the visible: at least that if no more, thought through my eyes," from Ulysses. We know Joyce had an interest in Buddhism, I wonder if it influenced that passage.
Interesting question nondescript, I'm not sure!
Great presentation. Very thoughtful. But after 20 years studying Buddhism, I now tend towards agreement with the wayward monk. As a student now of Vedanta, I feel like h finally making progress spiritually. Don’t get me wrong, i love the Buddhadharma. But there is a simplicity to the Upanishad model. Tat Vam Asi, Thou Art That. From a philosophical perspective, think of Ochams Razor. Also, in regards later Buddhism, they also brought in the notion of Buddha Nature, and Tathatagatagarba, in addition to the Tibetan LuminousMind (maybe the same idea). Its as if later Buddhism, perhaps in competition with the veda tradition for popular support, made a course correction away from the Buddhas philosophically austere, almost nihilistic, model for awakening.
Yes I think there's a lot of similarities between the Upaniṣadic model and that found in much later Buddhism. Whichever works for you!
calvin: The Budha was very clear that neither nihilism nor eternalism are right view. However, this is kind of canoying to a lot of peole, because he is speaking in negative terms only and refuses to be pinned down on issues that most people care about. People want to ewither believe that there is something in us that lasts forever or, failing that, that when we die we just die and cease to exist. Buddha says that both those views are wrong.
He actualy does tells us how he belives (Some) things really work, in some cases. It Other times, he say it is a waist of time to even thyink about it because it does not contribute to the ceasation of suffering. But is pretty complicated. So it is pretty undesrstanadble that later schools of Buddhism would create some form of eternalism. But in theearlyest Buddhist texts he is very clear that there is nothing anywhere in the universe that is permanent. That is not very comforting, unless you really fully and completly grasp it. But just becasue somethinmg is coplex, subtle, and hard to grasp does not mean that it is wrong. Sceince confirms the Buddhas view, that there is nothing in the universe that does not decay, that does not change forms.
Furthermore, udha points out gthat not only is everything going to change, but everything is changing constantly and so quickly that it can not be said to evan exist at all, in the way that we think it does. And of course, that aplies to us, too.
Vedic religion was not the popular religion in India..It was Buddhism which was the state religion most of the time..or the Puranic Religion which was opposed to Upanishads.. Upanishads were never a popular text in India..its only in recent years that they gained popularity
@@milascave2 I think you are confused here,
Absoluteness is Hinduism is beyond mind and senses ,
It’s beyond materialism .
Death, rebirth all these are modifications of nature .
Human being should eliminate ego to attain the state of absoluteness .
@@DougsDharmathe taghāgatagarbha is an interesting concept. However the Mādhyamaka notion of emptiness is represented by yhe Buddha nature is something which was to explain off the tathāgatagarbha is a passage addressing this concept in the Lankāvatāra (one may consult Either Suzuki's or Red Pine's translations.
I follow your works as well sir! Especially for Early Buddhist Doctrines to Theravada Vibhajyavādins and some early Schools of Abhidhamma.
The Pudgalavāda school of Vāstuputrīyas is interesting too (it was raken up for refutation by Vasubandhu in the Abhidharmakoshabhashya, thw Sarvāstivāda Vaibhāsika manual with Sautrāntika inclinations, criticized by Sangabhadra and defended by Sthiramati, and also a detailed refutation of soul is given by Vasubandhu in the Ātmapratisedha
Namah Sivāya
It would be interesting to compare the Buddha's view with Avecina's "Floating man" thought experiment. Avecina thought that a person disconnected from all sense stimuli, will still be conscious of something, the person will still be self-aware. He then tries to use this thought experiment to argue for the existence of the soul.
Indian philosophy traditionally enumerates 6 senses, the usual 5 plus 1 for the mental faculty. The object of mind-consciousness would be mental phenomena like feeling, perceptions, and thoughts/ideas. In other words, I think the Buddha was respond to Avicenna that he didn't account for the mind as a sense which is continually receiving input internally but which is ultimately empty of essence...so the Buddha would remain consistent with the theory of non-self.
Yes well in the thought experiment as Pranav suggests there is still mental consciousness, aware of thoughts. Thoughts arise and pass. This doesn't however argue for the existence of a soul so much as it argues for the existence of thoughts that are impermanent and subject to continual change.
I think we need to agree on the criteria for calling something a soul before we go any further.
Very good lecture. After many years of practicing maintaining awareness from the waking state into falling asleep to the dreaming state of sleep. One thing had become clear there was my consciousness which had developed with my experiences and was in control. But there was a another that was the watcher behind it all. Whatever you want to call it a soul i dont have the words other somehow i was apart of this silent witness and yet somehow felt separate.
Yes the notion of a watcher behind it all is another soul-type idea that the Buddha suggested we view as non-self.
Very interesting! As you have mentioned the term 'unborn', may you elaborate a bit on the idea of the 'unborn' that exists in the zen (and probably other) schools? I have heard about the 'unborn' in reference to the methaphor (or maybe rinzai koan) of '(which was) your face before your parents met?'
Interesting question Sletty. I think the "unborn" is similar to the "unconditioned" that I did an earlier video on: ruclips.net/video/-Wz3N5IAGDM/видео.html
Thank you
You're very welcome!
Hi Doug,
Appreciate the video but the Sutta says 'sensing' (any one of the six senses) is dependent on the meeting of sense object, sense base and sense consciousness. It would be preferable not to use the word 'contact' as it is usually a translation of phassa - that which is born of ignorance. If sensing were to be dependent on phassa, then it would wrongly imply that arahantship equals annihilation, which is not the case.
Sorry if it's a little specific with regard to translation of the terminology used but just for the sake of better clarity :)
Metta
Hi Dicson, contact isn't born of ignorance, it's central to consciousness. See for example MN 18.16: "Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting of the three is contact." suttacentral.net/mn18/en/sujato . Ignorance manifests after contact has arisen, when we grasp after the thing perceived, or when we misperceive.
@@DougsDharma Hi Doug, what I meant to say was that without ignorance at the root of dependent co-arising, there would not be contact. The meeting of sense object, sense base and sense consciousness that are simultaneously present according to dependent co-arising is a *condition* for contact. There can be meeting of the three without contact but there cannot be contact without meeting of the three. Just like feeling is a condition for craving and there cannot be craving without feeling but there can be feeling without craving. I would refer to MN 9 (suttacentral.net/mn9/en/sujato) and MN 79 (suttacentral.net/mn79/en/sujato)
When you say "over the years and centuries and millennia of Buddhism, other ideas have taken the place of this consciousness in the Buddha Dharma, as a potential ground of our continuation. And one of these ideas springs out of the concept of the luminous mind." Another idea, introduced by Buddhagosa in the Visuddhimagga, speaks of "rebirth consciousness" that goes from one lifetime to the next. What interests me about this idea is the way it is used in the teaching of dependent origination. In this case, it is dependent origination over three lifetimes; the first two links are experienced in the past lifetime, the next eight links are experienced in the present lifetime, and the last two links are experienced in the future lifetime. How can that be helpful in understanding the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination as it pertains to our lifetime now?
SCRIBD has a free 30-day trial where one can read a book about dependent origination in this lifetime. It is entitled Under the Bodhi Tree: Buddha's Original Vision of Dependent Co-arising by Ajahn Buddhadasa.
One can also read the book Dread mentioned in his comment below.
It's entitled “The Buddha’s Doctrine of Anatta - A Comparative Study of Self and Not-Self in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Western Philosophy” by Ajahn Buddhadasa.
Right, well traditionally "rebirth consciousness" isn't understood as a continuing thing, rather it's understood as a series of causal moments that essentially replace one another in a stream. As a secular practitioner though I leave aside questions about the purported mechanisms of rebirth.
My English is some what incorrect but i try my level best to explain what you being asked here.
Hope you know 12 steps of dependent origination.fro Avijja (Ignorance to aging and death).
If one sees the really of the existence as it really is That is call Vijja.(highest status of wisdom).at that moment Avijja Fade aways.
Suppose a situation where you are in a darkest place.You can see nothing due to the invisibility.The moment you get proper lightning you can see clearly what around with you.
Same way if we can develop our mind up to that level of wisdom we also can become enlightened.
See in this very body we all possess here,within another few decades time will becomes peace of dust whether we like it or not.The same dust or the earth is being under tremendous amount of variation both good and bad.But we dont even notice them.
Suppose if we can see through wisdom, that these very body of us and the 🌎 earth has no differences.Then you have nothing to over worry and to overjoy too.
Same princpe applis to the mind.
Then you tend to see this existence is just a flow of actions and reaction,just a process.There is nothing to be taken as me mine or my soul.
Then in that state it is called as Vijja.then Avijja will fade away.from that remaining 12 parts of that link of dependent origination also not continue.
@@DougsDharma It wasn't until I read Under the Bodhi Tree that I understood dependent origination as taught by the Buddha. It has helped me immeasurably to understand self-view and non-self thus beginning the process of disenchantment and relinquishment of self-view.
🙏
Jay Bhim namo buddhay 💙💙💙 🙏🏼😊
🙏🙂
Namo buddhay Doug
🙏🙂
Once my antagonist made the claim that he once improved the Buddha speech when he was the fisherman son. He has the black magic skill to be able to ‘transplant’ thoughts and actions from person to person. He goes from life to life by distributing his own thoughts and actions (karma) to other people and harvesting some of these back in his next life. I see this mind as an alien from a rocky planet that took possession of bodies (mostly humans) on earth. This is a different view on the fisherman son.
When a person thinks, is there a thinker who thinks thoughts or there is only thinking? There is only thinking. The act of thinking produces a thinker who thinks and that is what we refer to as the self, but as the the Buddha points out this idea of a thinker (the self) is an illusion created and sustained by thinking. This illusion of a thinker is created by thinking and it tries to control. It tries to control fear, desire, anxiety, greed, all of which are the result of thinking. One thought tries to control another thought. The same goes for sensation. Is there an experiencer of sensation or there is only sensation? There is only sensation.
This dualistic view of an experiencer and experience is also sustained by our language. When there is anger we say "I am angry" which implies a self who experiences anger, but the reality is there is only anger, not someone who is experiencing anger.
Yes, thanks Doopliss77!
Buddham saranam gacchami 💚
🙏🙂
🙏🙏🙏
🙏🙂
Hi Doug, good video. I would like to leave a future video suggestion here: "Early Buddhism in the context of the singularity and transhumanism".
I don't know much about them!
😊🙏🏻
🙏😊
This is very interesting because a common believe, these days, is that a person’s essence is eternal.
Hmmm wonder what is true, and also wonder how reincarnation could occur without persistent ‘ something. ‘
Right, well early Buddhist dharma denies the idea of an eternal essence in anything. Rebirth is said to occur dependent upon a series of causally interconnected states, though as a secular practitioner I leave aside speculative questions on the purported mechanisms of rebirth. What interests me more is this-life practice.
@@DougsDharma Doug, Thank you for the reply. This reminds me of my own view of reincarnation, which some folks find a bit odd. That is, ‘ I don’t know if reincarnation is a thing or not, but I makes no difference to me. I’m going to live my life as fully and properly as I can either way. ‘
It’s also fun two think of two possible ( of several cases ) :
1 you believe in reincarnation but it doesn’t happen ~ what are you going to do ?
2 you don’t believe in it, and gosh darn it ~ here you are finding yourself reincarnated !
If this reads as a bit humorous then my feelings are coming through. I know that I’m joyfully ignorant, but I do try to live the life ( well ) that I have now. Whatever does or doesn’t happen after that, I’ll just have to accept it.
Thank you again for this interesting videos. They really make me think.
What Brihadaranyaka Upanushad refers to as SELF or Brahman is Transcendent Consciousness or Transpersonal Consciousness which is the ONE Consciousness which is outside of Space Time and Creation.It is the knower or witness but has no agency.The atma( individuated Consciousness) is identical to Brahman.It is unborn or uncreated and neither does it reincarnates.What reincarnates is the Subtle body(19 components)which contains the Karmic patterns(Samskaras).What in Buddhism is refered to as SHUNYATHA(non self)is identical to Brahman.There has to be an entity to be reborn or for rebirth.That entity that takes a new body is the Subtle body.Vedanta declares that as long as we think that we are the subtle body( due to ignorance and identification with Karma) we will reincarnate due to Dependent Arising.Once we realise we the Atma we will not take rebirth.Both Buddha and the Vedas are alluding to the same Transcendent Reality which is immortal and Bliss but themetaphors are opposite.
You should watch Bhante Punnaji's videos to clear your concept about Buddhism
🙏🏽
🙏😊
Budhham sarnam gachhami🙏
🙏😊
I read about this in the Historical Buddha by H.W. Schumann
Yes that's a good book, it was one of the sources I used for my course on the Buddha's life over at onlinedharma.org/.
Thank you for this video. I am a bit confused. In the Thai forest tradition it is often said "Consciousness never dies", but it is also said that this consciousness is not personal. It is always there and only the Kilesa give the delusion of a self. I tried to figure this out and came to the conclusion that they could use this term to describe nibbana and some then say "pure consciousness" to it. I find that pretty confusing, because somehow it seems to contradict MN38. Some also say that there is more than one consciousness, the sensory consciousness (eyes, ears, nose, etc., Vinjana). And there is the citta that never dies. There is also something else outside of it called an "observer". In Tan Ajahn Dtun's biography I first read that this "observer" is Avija and I think that agrees with MN38. In some speeches of well-known Ajahns I have heard that consciousness (which never dies) should be in the heart and as I said, I have not yet found out. Maybe Nibbana is ment by it? But why not just call it Nibbana? Any suggestions ?
I'm really not sure Paññavaddhi. All I can say is that I've also had the same sense from some of the Thai forest tradition, and I know we're not the only ones who have that sense since I've read others who are equally confused. Of course, one can use the word "consciousness" and really mean something more like "emptiness" or "anatta"; it depends how it's interpreted.
@@DougsDharma Thank you for your answer. Appreciated. Good to know that I'm not the only one who os confused about it :)
If u can't understand and find yourself stuck in this you should leave it the truth exist by itself it is your own judgement which changes it you just focus on your path even Buddha was criticised by Brahmins and Brahmins multiple sects quarrel with each other
Going into this will not do anything i have wasted 2 years searching through all philosophy but not Focused on path now i left that idea i am happy i am open up to new experience i am not limiting myself
Hi..I would like to know on vegetarian in buddhism.
Tqvm.
I have a video that discusses that: ruclips.net/video/r5oncPD7jKo/видео.html
I think this concept can be expanded upon. Consciousness is constantly being birthed and decayed in a sense yes. In this case the senses are used as examples. The consciousness of this eye, nose etc experiencing it's unique perspective in the universe which is constantly changing, each experience is being born and decaying moment to moment as time unfolds. My eye, your eye, each, the eye of a bee experiencing UV light, of an ants experiencing pheromones, a light receptor cell experiencing the impact of photons. A DNA strand of folding, the experience of an atom being drawn towards another atom etc. Consciousness in this view is not a content of the universe, it is an interdependent pre requisite component, each "piece" of the universe has a unique 'relative' lense of which to experience the rest, to varying degrees of complexity.
as a beginner, so is one going for absolute purity (where one's still there but not born again) or completely extinguished (gone) ?
I'd say one is aiming for enlightenment, which is the complete eradication of greed, hatred, and delusion.
@@DougsDharma i guess that's what the buddha might be talking about 'acinteyya'?. one doesn't know oneself - self or non-self or something? i guess i better dig deep and look within keep peeling and perhaps find out. 🙂
If there is no such thing as a consolidated self/consciousness that continues, what is that "thing" that gets released from the cycle of birth and death upon attaining nirvana? I remember that you did a video on "what of us continues"? Mahayana acknowledge that there is a consciousness that continues, and some sects subdivide this consciousness into 8 parts (for deep doctrinal study purposes). Is it possible that there is a middle ground between these two opposing views?
Well the Mahāyāna interprets consciousness in many different ways, so there's no simple answer as to how to interpret it there. But any doctrine which claims that the same consciousness literally persists through time isn't compatible with early Buddhist dharma.
Maybe Buddha didn't wanted people to be dependent on something that's why he rejected self but he reached the same places which upanishads claim
His teachings are contradicted in many ways even one statement atmo deepo bhava people took it as different on this basis divided themselves
In one sutta he also said that i haven't told all the truths about what i know
In the backdrop of this thesis, can you please explain the relevance of reincarnation in Buddhism? In simpler words, 'what' or 'who' is then reborn, if nibbānā isn't attained? Not the the anatta, not the aggregates, then what?
There is nothing that is literally the same moment to moment in Buddhism; all things are always changing. This is the case for you today and tomorrow, it's also traditionally the case between lifetimes. All there is is a series of causally connected events. Check out my playlist on self and non-self for more: ruclips.net/p/PL0akoU_OszRjA9n0-U24ZCpfEQVFxeGz2
@@DougsDharma Thank you so much for your reply! I will go through the playlist for sure.
But how did Buddha knew all this that everything has cause he definitely knew it by himself that himself in him must be permanent to see everything temporary this is mind boggling can anyone give me a argument to this so i can understand more
Well it's a good question how he was sure of the universality of these claims.
In the past, I wasted a lot of time and energy trying to understand the concept of non-self. I reckon if the Buddha could see us today, he might regret he ever mentioned it. So much confusion, misunderstanding, wrong views and intellectualising. Sure, for some it seems important - fair enough - to each their own. But for me, the teaching of non-self was an obstacle in the sense that I could not understand it intellectually. I decided to give up trying to understand it and concentrate more on meditation. It is through meditation, not trying to figure it out intellectually, that I occasionally get a glimpse of what non-self is. Maybe some people who are smarter than me have had better luck. But I reckon, for me at least, that non self needs to be experienced to be understood.
Like you, I'm not an expert or intellectual but I agree completely. I say I'm not a "book Buddhist" in that I don't know the terms to explain Buddhism. Often I find that when I try to get answers through reading I end up with more questions than before. For now I'll try to find the answers myself. But should someone point out mistakes in my thinking that I can understand, I'm open to changing my thinking, too.
Well if you want to waste a little more time I have a whole playlist on non-self that might help a little, or might not! 😄 ruclips.net/p/PL0akoU_OszRjA9n0-U24ZCpfEQVFxeGz2
So I'm studying Yoga right now, and I think that you're misinterpreting the Upanishads a little bit here. All of the things that you mentioned, sight, smell, taste, etc, are all objects of consciousness, and are impermanent and changing. However, there is a belief that the ability to see or the power of consciousness is eternal. So from the Yogic perspective, no thing is eternal, but the light of consciousness is everpresent with or without objects of awareness to illuminate.
In a similar sense, the vacuum of space appears dark, despite having the light of the sun moving through it. We can only see the light of the sun once it hits something. The light is always there, but there aren't always objects to illuminate.
Now the mention of consciousness being the controller, I think is a view of the Upanishads and doesn't seem to carry forward into other Yogic philosophy that develops. I would agree that consciousness doesn't control the objects of awareness... But to be honest, I don't know what role consciousness actually plays.
Anyways, thanks for this video, I always learn something new when you post, so I really appreciate it.
Sure! Yoga is based on millennia of development after the Upaniṣads, and to my knowledge there isn't much of a direct relationship between them. So I wouldn't necessarily assume that the Upaniṣadic view of the self is identical to that presented in classical Yoga. A good book about the history of Yoga is James Mallinson's Roots of Yoga. He is one of the real academic experts in the field.
@@DougsDharma Thanks, I'll check him out!
Buddha blames Monk Sati's misunderstanding about consciousness; therefore, Buddha explains him what is His teaching. Also, Buddha blames Monk Malukya Putta and educates him. The reason why? Their misunderstanding is dangerous for others. Because they are monks and his pupils who need to understand the truth.
Yes that's right Win Thu, thanks!
I think Lord Buddha did not talk about Non Self but rather Non Identification..
Not identifying with any description of self..
The vedantic description is also a form of Labeling of self..We can question that on what basis are the Upanishadic writers mentioning the qualities of the self?
I think Buddhism is more of Non Identification than Non Self..
Well, at least the Buddhism of the early texts is both. The Buddha talks constantly of non-self (anatta), and one way to understand non-self is through non-identification. (Not-mine, not-I, not-myself).
So the Buddha says that our internal monologue is not us, not the “self”?
I think by 3rd Jhanic state the monologues completely stop but the awareness is still there. Once you see the monologues disappear you are convinced that the thoughts are not me (because thoughts are born and die and can cease to exist). However, the awareness that is still left behind has no identification with self. The awareness watches over all monologues from a distance. I think this awareness is referred to as the knower/consciousness (vijanana) by both the Upanishads and the Buddha. Seems like the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad claimed that this 'knower' was unborn (as in it is ever present) but Buddha said that is not the case either. It can be easily seen that awareness disappears when one goes under anesthesia during a surgery and then reappears after the surgery. So Buddha was right about even awareness being conditioned. I just think you need to have a very advanced meditation skill with insights to see that awareness itself is not one but comes out of contacts with sense objects.
That's right John, our internal monologue is just thoughts arising and passing.
Rich discussion. Empty the heart and Sati will reveal itself. Sati is the precursor to mindfulness. "Why do I move"? From the view point of a returner per say. Would be different for a non returner. No doubt. Typical psychological hierarchy of both the East and the West. But I am drunk, lol.
buddha said non-inner self. an means non atta means inner self. However, buddhism is against any self-conception, unless for practical reasons.
I think you misused the word 'indicative'
Oh?
☸️☸️☸️☸️☸️☸️☸️🤔🤔🤔🤔
Doug the consciousness that vedanta talks about is not vijnana, the emptiness or anatta of buddhism is the same as fullness or the ultimate reality referred to as atman in vedanta.
The Buddha nature is exactly what vedantins call as Brahman, the self luminous light or chit (consciousness).
Well depending on how you look at it, they are either exactly the same, or complete opposites. 😊
@DougsDharma in either case it cannot be grasped by the mind so it is ultimately futile to even think about it.
Buddha nature is a much later concept created by Mahayana Buddhists (Tibetian)... It is not The Buddha's original teachings from Tipitaka...
@Tridib_Barua_Tinkel yeah but look at what the very word Buddha means: the awakened one, the one who has permanently overcome samsara..
In sanskrit it literally means "that which has become aware".. now what is "that" ?
@@Shokirex Buddha said in the phenapindupama sutta that consciousness is like the magician's trick on the crossroads: it does not have an ultimate reality, not just once, he said many many times in the suttas that consciousness is dependently arisen and its proven by thousands of arhants over and over again. Scholars suggested not to translate word by word.
In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvaana sutta Buddha affirms the existence of the Eternal Self(including AND also beyond the five aggregates) -- thats what the upanishads talk of. The Buddha denied the induvidual self / ego -- not the Eternal Atman - he didn't even mention a thing about it.
But enquire deeply into Niravaana -- what that state is. And enquire deeply into what the nature of Atman is -- the Advaitic.
You won't find much difference.
Buddha didn't go deep enough to touch the realm of Atman -- or he did. He certainly knew far more than what he taught. As he revealed once ton Ananda -- holding the leaves in his fist to demonstrate.
And certainly many (especially Tibetan)Buddhist mystics affirmed the Self -- not scholars.
Scholars themelves don't know anything -- no experiential realization.
Only parroting Buddha's words, dry scriptures. They are far from Nirvaana.
All these words cease there.
Because it's beyond the mind's grasp -- scholasticism won't help. Meditation would.
Well this sounds more like a decision to rely on later scriptures (the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāna Sutra) rather than the earlier ones. That's fine, each of us has to find what resonates with our practice.
I have a question, why aren't all buddhists vegan?
Well for one thing, the Buddha wasn't vegetarian. See for example my earlier video: ruclips.net/video/r5oncPD7jKo/видео.html
@@DougsDharma Thank you for your response, appreciate it. I have now watched the whole video and given it a like. I’ll write my comment over there
The Buddha teaching anatman Or no self isn't that just as much a concept or a belief as brahman's teaching that there is atman?
atman is not a belief. anyone with perfect single-pointed concentration sees awareness directly and it appears that way. the problem is it appears to exist that way unchangingly unless you actively challenge if it does
Sure, it's a concept that arises from hearing about it or from seeing it directly. It just happens to be an accurate description of the way all things are for the Buddha.
@@DougsDharma OK the reason I asked isn't I asked is because I thought it was part of the Buddha's teaching to get rid of all concepts and beliefs
@@nkbguy2193 Well his teaching is to get rid of all attachment or identification with concepts or beliefs, not to get rid of the concepts or beliefs themselves. They can be very useful and accurate.
It's Dhamm not Dharma
I did a video on that recently: ruclips.net/video/17JuZUq5OHg/видео.html
If there is no self, there is no suffering. Bcz there is no suffering, there is no escape from it. Buddhists are contradicting themselves. Analysis of Deep Sleep will get rid of wrong idea of "absence of Self".
There is suffering, but there is no permanent self. The former doesn't require the latter.
@@DougsDharma, Who is suffering and who remains after overcoming it??
Not sure about Buddhist teachings. He seems to endorse the view that Kings and wealthy lived noble lives in past lives and that is how they achieved their present positions. But we all know people like Kissinger, Bush, Rumsfeld who were war criminals and did quite well in this world. It is hard for me to believe they lived such noble lives in the past, and now suddenly became rather monstrous, yet still enjoying their good karma. I think the interpretation of Jesus or even that found in Bhagavad Gita more realistic. That human beings of wealth and privilege are often diabolical and that the blessed are often downtrodden. Also many times people need to engage in action against such a society and not assume the blessings will be there in the next lives. The Buddhist notion that to live ethically then you will build a great karma in the next life or lives seems silly judging how those that live ethically to some extent are not treated too well in human society. Also animals are often as loving as humans or even more so and we are to believe that human beings happened to become human because they are so much better. Look at the factory farms and the terror we allow as a society without blinking an eye. But in my view, many proclaim such wisdom in Buddhism, especially the secular, but it seems Buddhism has some big holes. Like proclaiming Karma, reincarnation, and non self together going on for endless lives when there is no substance at all. Either the notion of anything continuing is false and it all ends when the body dies, since the body has to be there for the various consciences, or there is something that continues even though it is constantly changing. I think the Buddha tried to have it both ways based on culture and beliefs of his time but the reasoning isn't there.
Thanks for that Grant. The whole idea in all Indian belief systems is that while one needs good karma to get a good life, one can then destroy that good karma by using that good life for ill purposes. Then you will fall back again to a life that's not so good later on. So people like those you mention may have behaved well in past lives, but they won't necessarily have great future ones. While I am a secular believer, in that I leave aside speculations about past and future lives, I think at least it's important to understand the traditional viewpoints.
@@DougsDharma thanks for your input Doug. Just one question if you will and then I will accept your answer and leave it at that. But if you are just talking ethics, like in the noble eight fold path and a view point from the noble truths, and unconcerned about not knowing the whole Buddhist preaching of karma, reincarnation, etc., Then wouldn't you be better off promoting a Machevellian view of the world as stated in the Prince because clearly, to me anyway, that an ethical life as proclaimed by what I believe a secular Buddhist would promote would leave people like sheep to be used and abused by the vast majority of humans with a pack mentality. Just experience a little office politics if you think this may not be true. But thanks for your kindness in responding and if you can respond to the points I mentioned. I will accept whatever you offer and we can leave it at that. I enjoy your channel.
@@grantlawrence611 Well it's rather like theists who claim that if there weren't a God they'd go around killing people. Really? Do we need to feel personally threatened in order not to do wrong? It's also important to keep in mind that many who DO believe in a God, or in active karma and rebirth, also do bad things. So if beliefs in God or rebirth are useful, they aren't always so. We can be good without them, and we can be bad with them.