🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂 📙 You can find my new book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
Many good points here Doug. Also, note the sermon was to those the Buddha had previously practised strong asceticism with, ie seeking full control of body and mind. Also anatta means non-self not just not-self, as is made clear elsewhere in saying 'empty of self and what belongs/pertains to self'. The control argument seems more focused on this second not-mine aspect, while the impermanence argument is focussed more on the first, not self, aspect. Peter Harvey
I agree with you. The Buddha was not speaking to the uninitiated during that talk. He was speaking to devoted and knowledgeable seekers, people who had spent years searching for unification of the "real" self. Their beliefs at the time give us the yoga practices of body control - piercing the body without bleeding, living without eating or drinking, claims of being hundreds of years old, etc. What the Buddha was conveying to them is that this "perfect self" is an illusion which does not exist. Some people believed him and others just thought they needed to work harder to unify and fully embody that self. This same division exists today among mediators and seekers. A key to resolving the dilemma is to peel back the layers to find the original thought, the source of the impulse to do this or that. Where did this desire come from? Was it the expression of an ever-existent self or something else? Looking clearly without hindrances obscuring the view, one can see karma (past experience and conditioning meeting present moment stimuli) giving rise to the desire that guides the choice, which in turn becomes part of the karma for moments in the future. All without need of, nor input from, an Atta.
That subtext was my usual way of investigation. Phenomena arise due to conditions which are outside of our control. If there there is a self in it, there must be perfect control. E.g, when there is a negative feeling, we can search for the cause of this feeling. Usually it was a sense-contact at the beginning of the chain of causation. We stop grasping, if we are mindful of the cause. We dont own the object at the cause. It is like catching dirt all life long. Somebody throws dirt to us and we catch it by reflex. Eventually we raise our hands and refuse to catch so we dont get dirty hands anymore.
One way to think about the idea of "no control over the body" or even the mind, is that we cannot control the basic biological functions, but we can control our actions. We can't control the cells that make our bodies function, but the results from such functions allow us to control how we respond or react and act. We can choose to act upon thoughts and impulses. We choose to move in specific ways, even though it's taking a combination of electrical signals from the brain and muscle fibers(protein cells functioning) to accomplish such movements. It truly is the same idea, two sides of one coin. We can, and also cannot.
Thank you for this series. I think non-self is one of the more advanced topics and something I find difficult to comprehend, and much of that has to do with western logic. We often think the answer must be yes or no, that there must be a single cause to every effect, that things must be black or white. The concept of being both yes and no or neither never tends to come to mind, not to mention the ineffable. Changing how I think of things isn't easy. The most valuable lesson that I may have learned from Buddhism is learning to recognize what I do not know. It would be easy to assume non-self means we aren't responsible for our actions because we are never the same person, and that would be far from what the Buddha taught.
Yes. My sense is that the Buddha's views on the self were nuanced, and all too often people want to pigeonhole him into less nuanced alternatives. But such is life! 😄
The issue cleared up for me when I changed my way of thinking from "the body (feelings, etc) is not the self" to "the body is not me or mine". I'm not sure the Buddha claimed that we have no control over the body, just that we can't will the body to not get sick, age or die. These are just the obvious ones but there are all kinds of ways the body is acting in every moment without our conscious intention or "control." It's only when a behavior happens to follow an intention that we imagine that we have control. But if we investigate those intentions, which are an aspect of sankhara, we find that those are also not me and not mine. They arise from causes and conditions just like everything else. The five kandhas are dharmas just like everything else. They belong to nature so it is not appropriate to cling to or identify with them.
I am so grateful that you talk more about the topic on non- self in two steps. As you have pointed out first step we reflect with intuition on the five aggragates as to see whether we cqn find a owner or the controler with ,within or outwards from the five aggragates.Then thats known as developing the vipaassana meditation via the characteristic of 'anattta'(in pali its called Anattanupassana) Then the second part we can do vippassana by reflecting on the characteristic of Anichca (The impermanent nature of five aggragates),Then gradually we can relize that the nature of all things are that, they appear from no where and dissapear without any remainders whatsoever. One similes recollect me made by the Buddha was that, the world is like a candle.light, the light came to existence from no where due to a chemical reaction by the some elements, and exist only until the fuels remains,at the it dissapears without being remaining anything. And even when we see the existence of the candle light while it burning.It actually is not the thing as we see with normal eye view. If you closely attend on the light with intuition,We can see that this moment, propene + oxygen + strip make the light by chemically reacting together. Moment to moment it repeata the same process, all those regularly exhausting.So does the light keep changing all the time.the light we see this moment, wont get in next moment,same repetitive process circles around. We cannot control over light,means that we cant keep the same light through out the time.even though it seems as the same light passes moments,actually it is not,then in that nature we can see within that process it is no use of claiming possession over it.that eventually make us realized about the characteristic of anatta or non self. Same principle,apply for five aggragates
Thanks for the "background information"! But partial control or perfect control - it stays a somewhat odd argument in my humble opinion. The impermanence-argument is more convincing to me, and I'm looking forward to your video on that... 😊🙏🏻 PS: _Analytical Buddhism: The Two-tiered Illusion of Self_ by Miri Albahari is a wonderful "modern" approach regarding the No-self subject. Highly recommended! 🙂
There are at least two trails that lead to the top of this Mountain... And this is my approach, i hope you read all my comments, i commented in two more videos of you... please thank me for that, i walk a lot alone and experiencing a lot of difficulty, i was expelled from the college where i studied here in Brazil before completing my degree, now i'm trying to complete a book - that I'm writing - so i can later get some job because my little family is still getting sick and my suport is fallout..., sad country... but i hope you'll read my comments and consider the insights that will emerge from them (My coments, they are in the following videos: Real Self in Early Bud... and The Buddha on Self and Non-self)
Thanks Doug for your kimd efforts...Most important thing we need to keep in mind is..buddha did not conduct this sermon to five deciples untill they have attained the stream entry..So this sermon is conducted to an awakened group of deciples, where things can be far deeper and out of our thinking pattern..😊🙏🌹
it seems to me that the Buddha was talking about the possibility of having control over not falling ill, aging or dying. The power to escape suffering and common dissatisfaction, so to speak. And of course we don't have that power. The fact that we are subject to this fundamental unsatisfaction, dukkha, This shows that it is outside the scope of a possible supreme self, a supreme controller, a supreme owner. Elsewhere the Buddha said that it would be better to take the body for a self rather than consciousness, because the body has a certain stability over time, that consciousness doesn't have - it changes every moment. in the final analysis, these three characteristics of reality are linked : impermanence, dissatisfaction and non-self.. we have no control, so the thirst to take ownership and identify at this heap of impermanence and Insatisfaction and non-self is vain. It's perhaps an in-depth extension of the first speech. Therefore liberation does not lie in the realization or fantasy of a supreme instance within or without ourselves (Self or God the Creator, the Savior), but in the extinction of thirst.
@ 00:47 'The Coffee Sutra' 😅 ☕️ Never seen Doug swigging fine java during a video 😅 - What is your favorite blend for helping reflection / meditation ? Buddha beans 🫘? 😅
Thanks Doug for shedding light on this topic as I do find something strange in the argument without the subtext you mentioned. Body movement is partially controlled by our mind (some are autonomous). Our mind is in turn conditioned by the input from the six senses plus latent tendencies (bias). These have been scientifically studied. Since they are all conditional phenomenon, there is no real self (sakaya) that controlled the body and mind perfectly. Real self is just a fabricated concept out of the proliferation of ideas. (sakaya ditthi)
This is indeed a very interesting topic and very thought provoking. I think that In order to have complete/perfect control of something, one must have complete possession of that something and one must know that something extremely well. One does not possess one's physical body nor know it well. For sure, our very bodies have so many co-habitants that we don't even know of, and for sure, we don't really know what is going on with our bodies, within and without, most of the time if not all the time. For these reasons, I don't think we really possess our bodies at all, we are simply co-habitants in these bodies and try to use these bodies to reach our goals, just like the other co-habitants. Simply put, our bodies are facilities that we share with many other living beings, including good and bad bacteria, mites, etc. When we move our bodies or meditate or even just think, we are simply using the body to allow us to perform the tasks. When the Buddha might have mentioned how we could control ourselves during meditation, I think He might have meant the control of our approaches and methods in meditation practice, not the body per sec. Such control applies to all our thinking and other actions as well. As the other four aggregates are concerned, they are closely tied to the bodily functions. our senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste, feelings), cognition, volition, and consciousness, are all influenced by what the body is exposed to. However, the one exception is our consciousness aggregate which is not simply consciousnesses related to the 6 senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste, feeling, perception), but also the consciousness of accumulated knowledges for our thinking and for our judgement on what is right and what is wrong what what to do with such knowledge. Come to think of it, our physical bodies are nothing but a labyrinth of never ending chemical reactions that drive the biological activities. To begin with, all individuals have the same kind of physiology. What makes every living individual distinctive from one another is the mind. Our minds in turn affect our moods and thus our physiology, thus controlling our thinking and actions. In the Upanisads that Doug has quoted, "self is the controller of the mind." what is that "self" who is present within? In the Mahayana sector, the consciousness aggregate includes a 7th consciousness called the "manas" which is essentially the "ego". This ego influences our judgment and thus we evaluate everything with our ego as a measuring stick. The consciousness aggregate also includes an 8th consciousness called the "alayavijnana". which is sort of a storehouse consciousness. It represents the latest evolved consciousness of a living being that includes the 7th consciousness. It seems such 8th consciousness in theory constitutes the concept of "self". However, one of the main themes in the Buddha's teachings is to release ourselves from the attachment of "self", and "self" itself is the epitome of attachment to everything else.
From what i read about the "non control" of our bodies: it was ment in this context: Our bodies grow, age, fall ill and die - all without any control on our part over them... If we had control over the body - we could become young and heathy, but we cannot.
With respect to the body, the heart beats on its own, we cannot control it. Even if you try to stop breathing, eventually your body will take a breath. When you’re hand touches a hot pot, it moves before you decide to move it. If our body is the self, how does it move without direction from the self? So, perhaps we can say that our true self has influence over the body but, the body isn’t actually the self.
This morning, during my meditation practice, I reached the very same conclusions that the Upanishads: that this "Observer" we have inside of us (the thing that observes the thought during meditation, the thing that detaches itself from feelings and emotions and so on) is actually the ultimate thing. I've been looking for the source of the feeling/sensation of "I", and I noticed that I can observe my thoughts and my feelings, and detach from them, but I cannot, for the life of me, "observe the observer", or "watch the watcher" as it were. Why, though? Well, the conclusion seems to be that it's because such a thing is "ME": the thing that gives me the feeling of myself, the thing that connects me through all periods of my life, and which would be a part of the "divine essence" that pervades reality itself - and this "divine essence" would be the thing Schopenhauer called The Will: the "force" that sustains reality and existence itself. However, it does not feel satisfying. It does not make me feel enlightened or blissful. It give me a powerful nagging feeling that I'm missing something, that there is something OFF. And it is terribly annoying, because it doesn't go away. I believe this is what the word "dukkha" means, right? The wagon's wheel is off, and so the ride it bumpy. But how the heck do I fix this? I feel like I broke my mind.
@@DougsDharma I think I got through that. The fact that I can't observe the observer is simply because the observer is not there. It's not a thing. It is a mental construct that only exists when I focus my attention on it. It feels like it has always been there because it's a constant experience, but that doesn't mean the thing itself is always there. It is created by the mind, through a confluence of processes, and only when there's direct attention devoted to it. Otherwise it does not exist at all. That works for me 😅
I heard something about RUclips disabling the dislike button. I disliked this video to test what they meant, I didn't actually "dislike" the video though. So if you see a dislike, I didn't mean to do it and I'm sorry! I liked it right after lol keep the great content coming!
Great video, Doug! Is it also possible that the word which we translate as "control" may have had a more far-reaching meaning in the original language?
Control and ownership are topics made very interesting by Graeber’s Debt: the first 5000 years. Lots chew on there, even if I think he saw characterized Buddhism by Mahayana tradition.
Maybe the concept of not having control over our body is meant in a sense that we can't stop or slow down aging, prevent sickness or any other kind of physical weakness that we would endure during our lives. Edit: I commented in the middle of the video! I just heard you bring up that "aging" point at the end! So maybe I should practice patience next time! :D
This does excite one to reason. I concur that it is not that complicated, the body has no stable age or accomplishment. It's an illution in a myriad of illusions. That we can put food in our mouths or are helpless is not relevant to our being more or less of anything. we're helpless and it's OK. Know the mind.
You hit the nail on the head. There are many different conceptions of what a self is and one argument is not going to work against all. This other argument considers the conception where self is not static, but we have perfect control over changes to it. In some sense it is private. I think this is the Christian view that is used to justify free will. I recognize that I am not a Christian theologian of course.
Well yes, it's similar to the Christian view of so-called "libertarian free will", though to be fair that view actually stemmed from ideas in classical Greece.
Buddhism, in a nutshell, is that we all suffer and can end suffering by right thinking. Focus on these two truths. If self is constantly changing, there is no (permanent) self . Here, self is our "identity."
hello Doug, were good Vedio. One request is there sir. about the Brahminical source you are using. Recently there are some studies suggest that Buddhism was first organise religion according archological findings
Hmmm ... I don't really see how that could be the case since there were religions in places like Egypt long before Buddhism. (Not to mention the religion of the Vedas in India).
yes sir, I am talking vedas and upnishad. There were written much later than that. there oldest records of the scriptures is of 15th century(Acc to UNESCO site). So taking reference from this text. we should be carefully about it. much more research needed in western academic circle.
@@saugamathazine1959 We don't usually date a belief by the age of its oldest existing physical material. Many beliefs -- including those of Buddhism -- are much older than their existing physical examples would indicate.
@@DougsDharma yes many belief are much older than material existence. In case of buddhism it's roots can see from harappan civilisation. They have there own letters (script) which is not deciphered yet. After that vedic period cames which say that knowledge were orally transfer to generations to generations.
The true-self (Atma/Brahman) is the one that *witnesses* all that is unfolding....(in mind and body and world through life times and beyond). The true-self has nothing to do with having any *control* on whatever is unfolding. What is unfolding is all result of nothing but Karma (i.e. dependent origination). Thanks Doug for all the great work you are putting out!
Doug, I'm curious why you took the "subtext" from the Upanishads angle here. I have read and practiced a bit with the Anattalakkhana Sutra as well as the Nadi Sutta/River Sutra and these, at least to me, are self-evident that the Buddha is not referring to our ability to move our bodies but rather to make our bodies how we want it to be. Same with the other aggregates. Just curious.
Right, well the Buddha is talking about making our bodies how we want them to be, but this is ambiguous. We can make them how we want them to be in certain respects, but not others.
@@DougsDharma Not criticizing it but it just never occurred to me - I think it's because the focus is on "constant" and "not constant" - changing or unchanging - so when I look at that, I think about the body, mind, etc aging and changing across time. It doesn't bring to mind the obvious fact that I can move my body. Again, I enjoyed the video and thought it was good ... it just kind of struck me.
If you just relate what he said on the context of the era and lifestyle of the time and as well as of his other teachings in reference to, it’s a very straightforward inference to understand in this setting he is not talking about a generalized conception of control like a modern American or English thinking speaker would think of but more of a material _possession_ or having the resulting ability of exerting your will or “control of” a thing. On top of this to be more precise of his meaning he is alluding to the idea of not just any possession, but a concept of _absolute_ possession. Why is this more an accurate assumption? Well to understand material concept like possession and value of those possessions, there would have to be a certain level of faith, or trust in the persistence of the existence of those very things. Tying his first lecture was of impermanence, and reality’s nature of impermanence he uses this concept of absolute control to show its very fallacy that there can be no such thing as absolute control as all things are impermanent and therefore nothing can be permanently possessed and controlled and therefore there is nothing truly to base a permanent self on.
@@DougsDharma I feel like a lot of the trouble comes in when translating the text of one language to another the context and meaning may seem missing, lost, or misunderstood to people who never encountered this language barrier before. But as a person who never fully learned the mother tongue of their parents the interpreting of more than just words comes second nature and automatic.
Please make a video on the Buddhist (specially Madhyamaka) view of deep sleep if possible. The Vedantic view of deep sleep (sushupti) is problematic and not very convincing, because it fails to answer the questions like, if there's no duality in deep sleep, how is it possible to come back from it? etc.
Madhyhamaka Buddhism is a bit later than most of what I deal with, but I might do something on that eventually. I did a video awhile back dealing with the ālaya-vijñāna and the bhavaṅga that gets into some of that, though the ālaya-vijñāna is a Yogācāra concept rather than Madhyamaka: ruclips.net/video/175JTI5AXc4/видео.html
Dear Doug, thanks for your interest in Dharma diffusion. But I would ask you something, do you really believe that the Buddha, the ultimate of the enlightement, would teach to direct disciples through argumentations?? The sphere of influence of a Buddha is magnificent, he could influence and teach to your inner self directly, he could give you direct knowing of "Rigpa", that is why we should consider that teachings through argumentation were for the "common" people... What is my point then?, I think that you could consider to mention that there are two ways of teaching, one is through argumentation and reflection, and the other is through direct openning of the mind to its true nature or "Rigpa" in tibetan, by a qualified master, for example a Rinpoche. Blessings from Buenos Aires Dany
Well it's not a matter of my belief Da ny, it's a matter of what we find in the suttas of early Buddhism: there the Buddha argued often and consistently with disciples and with people from other traditions. He didn't teach to the inner self directly, or at least if he did it's not mentioned as such. That's not to say such a thing never happens, it's just that we don't find it in early Buddhism.
@@DougsDharma you are right. I only think that it could be useful to mention the other posibilities of "learning", I knew a person who used to meditate, but one day he went to a full week Dzogchen retire with a tibetan Rinpoche, and he was introduced directly to the knowing of the true nature of the mind or "Rigpa", and his inner life changed completely, but before that he couldn't imagine that possibility... Blessings and thanks for your work Dany
It is a coincidence that I have been thinking on the sermon all week and then you have a video. The consciousness is impermanent and prone to illness. It sort of has the implication that something that is not consciousness is permanent. Buddha never says there is something personal and permanent, though. It is kind of saddening.
Yes, nothing personal is permanent. Though that argument is more along the lines of the Buddha's second argument for non-self in his second sermon. I'll discuss that argument in the next video. 🙂
Impermenent also means it keeps evolving. Most of the great things happen only because impermenent. You could learn knowledge and philosophy only because your consciousness is impermenent.
Can I check something out with you, but please be brutally honest with me! If the 'mind' for whatever it actually is, is the 'creator' and 'organiser' of the various ideas that 'we' hold on to; that would suggest that the 'self' is an idea or a conceptualisation within the structure we call 'mind'; a way to make sense of the world or the universe that 'we' inhabit. But it seems all these ideas and concepts appear to be built 'within', from gathered information. If the 'mind' that is trying to make sense of the information separates off an 'idea of self', it doesnt mean that that 'thing' actually exists. For instance, colors only exist in certain conditions. So could the idea of a self be likened to the blue of the sky? Sitting on this bench by this church, 'I' appear as a 'self' and have a 'mind'. In 'reality' (although 'reality' is also just an idea) there is no mind, no church, no bench, no I, not even a reality to pin anything onto.......? But even hanging onto that view, would be clinging to a conceptualisation?
Well yes, though from an early Buddhist standpoint this doesn't need to be taken all the way to concluding that nothing exists. What we can say is that there are physical forms made up of ever-changing elements, there are ever-changing perceptions, ever-changing volitions, thoughts, and so on. These are conceptualized as "a mind" or "a self". Not all conceptions are wrong or misleading, though the conception of a self is.
What i understand from the Buddha's teachings is that "nothing is either real or unreal". What is unreal is our subjective view on everything. When different people have conflicting views on certain thing, each may claim his/her view is the real one. However, what is real is that nothing is permanent, including our views on anything. Everything is constantly in transition. They may appear to be the same from moment to moment, however, everything is undergoing chemical and/or physical changes every moment. Our minds are constantly changing too as well as we keep learning more and accumulating more knowledge constantly. For that reason, our "self" are constantly changing as well. Our current "Self" may be quite different from the one even just moments ago, and it may change moments later. On that note, what is real?
Have a coffee Doug is Doug. Have saying Alpha Doug is Doug. Have saying Omega Doug is Doug. Have saying Nirvana Doug is Doug. Have saying Nonself Doug is Doug. Have saying Self Doug is Doug. Doug enlighten Doug is Doug.
Id like to add on the whole lack of control of body thing. We cannot stop seeing with our eyes open. Unless we can sleep at will on purpose or such. However illusions are something we cannot see past BASED ON PERCEPTION.. however.. there is that common vase illusion where theres either two faces kissing or a vase. Anal Watts said you cant see both at once. I damn well can. I tried this perceptual experiment before i saw the video just browing illusions. Then this guy says it cant be done and im like 🤦♂️ i see what you are getting across but its not truth. As above so below
dough i m really surprised that you are predating upnishads and even vedas than buddhist sources without any proofs. buddha never talks about such text and never even mentioned that anywhere. perhaps we all know that vedas and upnishad language is vedic sanskrit and its daughter language sanskrit. and both of these languages are derived from prakrit languages by just doing some modifications to prakrit as panini the compser of sanskrit language himself said. so its really upsad me that you are also got stuck in the brahminical agenda of predating themselves. you believe me or not but there is litterally no proof about any vedic age brahmins just fit themselve anyhow in the dark age of Indian history but basically they do not have any History in India they were Just Outsider and composed there text based on the buddhist texts as we know that there where many thousands of brahmins who joined the buddhist sangha so they just copied everything from buddhism one such example is adishankara from 8th centuary and its obvious that there were many in the past too aswell.and as you have said making it as a logic that buddha is commenting on the upnishads why dont you just turn the situation that brahmins are commenting on what the buddha said to nullify him because this also makes sense as much as your logic. so please thinks about this also have a good day🙂😇
Sure, everyone was commenting on everyone else. The Buddha even mentions the Vedas in the suttas; he clearly knew them and several of the early Upaniṣads as well. This is well attested and accepted by scholars of the early material.
5:00 You're taking it too literally :) Try making your body Asian. Regrow a lost limb. We can control our limbs, but that is not what he was speaking about
Yes, I know. But try to forget all you know about later Buddhist teaching and put yourself there, listening to this for the first time. Wouldn’t these questions have arisen for you?
An-Atman ..... I think you are on an ok track - we must be missing something, this argument is strange - As is, this sermon is just wrong, because most hindu views of Atman - it is not something we can control, it just exists. As is, this sermon would point to a fact the Buddha did not understand Atman. Now the Buddha saying the "Atman is Not the body because .., is not the mind because .., is not a component of the mind or body, because ..!" That would be a better translation.
Yes, there certainly would have been more to say about the alternate viewpoint, but do keep in mind we’re not talking about 21st c., nor even medieval, Hindu beliefs but rather beliefs from c. 5th-6th C. BCE, among certain proponents of the earliest Upanishads. Those are the views to which the Buddha would have been responding.
@@halcyon2864 how would one really know? Through hearing, contemplating, verifying and experiencing it first hand. Otherwise, it is just speculation, postulation and proliferation of views.
Seems like the center of confusion lies around the belief in free will. Wouldn't Buddhism see free will as an illusion? You talk about the action in which we are in control of, things like bending our arm and so forth, wouldn't this feeling of control be an illusion? It is simply a feeling we have. We feel like we are bending our arm but this bending of our arm is simply an effect with a cause, the cause being the intention. If you believe in free will then you assume that that intention is under "your" volitional control. But is it? Wouldn't the bending of the arm and the intention behind it be spontaneously generated by the brain? You become aware of an intention then the action happens, where is the doer? It seems to me that volition is just another appearance in consciousness, the same as any other feeling. Anger is not you it is an appearance in consciousness. Bending of the arm and the intention behind it is not you, it is simply an appearance in consciousness. From Mahasi Sayadaw: "While contemplating one notices a material process as object and a mental process of knowing it; and it is to that pair alone that the terms of conventional usage "being", "man", "women", "soul", refer. But apart from that dual process there is no separate man woman or being."
Not early than Buddha, coz there is no evidence or archeological findings or written inscription. Even the 4th century chines traveler fayang didn't mention anything like vedic culture in his writing, and early written text of barhminical religion date back between 12 to 14th century AD.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂
📙 You can find my new book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
Sadhu sadhu
Thank you!
Many good points here Doug. Also, note the sermon was to those the Buddha had previously practised strong asceticism with, ie seeking full control of body and mind.
Also anatta means non-self not just not-self, as is made clear elsewhere in saying 'empty of self and what belongs/pertains to self'. The control argument seems more focused on this second not-mine aspect, while the impermanence argument is focussed more on the first, not self, aspect.
Peter Harvey
@@peterharvey845 Good points, Peter! Excellent. 🙏
I agree with you. The Buddha was not speaking to the uninitiated during that talk. He was speaking to devoted and knowledgeable seekers, people who had spent years searching for unification of the "real" self. Their beliefs at the time give us the yoga practices of body control - piercing the body without bleeding, living without eating or drinking, claims of being hundreds of years old, etc.
What the Buddha was conveying to them is that this "perfect self" is an illusion which does not exist. Some people believed him and others just thought they needed to work harder to unify and fully embody that self. This same division exists today among mediators and seekers.
A key to resolving the dilemma is to peel back the layers to find the original thought, the source of the impulse to do this or that. Where did this desire come from? Was it the expression of an ever-existent self or something else? Looking clearly without hindrances obscuring the view, one can see karma (past experience and conditioning meeting present moment stimuli) giving rise to the desire that guides the choice, which in turn becomes part of the karma for moments in the future. All without need of, nor input from, an Atta.
Yes, this is a practice we can undertake right here and right now. Thanks Brian.
Well said. The first step is to remove hindrances that obscure the reality.
That subtext was my usual way of investigation. Phenomena arise due to conditions which are outside of our control. If there there is a self in it, there must be perfect control. E.g, when there is a negative feeling, we can search for the cause of this feeling. Usually it was a sense-contact at the beginning of the chain of causation. We stop grasping, if we are mindful of the cause. We dont own the object at the cause. It is like catching dirt all life long. Somebody throws dirt to us and we catch it by reflex. Eventually we raise our hands and refuse to catch so we dont get dirty hands anymore.
Yes, that's a great route towards insight. Thanks!
Thank you for this detaled explanation.
You are absolutely correct. I have reading all upnishads and you are so much on the point that even I am surprised
🙏😊
One way to think about the idea of "no control over the body" or even the mind, is that we cannot control the basic biological functions, but we can control our actions. We can't control the cells that make our bodies function, but the results from such functions allow us to control how we respond or react and act. We can choose to act upon thoughts and impulses. We choose to move in specific ways, even though it's taking a combination of electrical signals from the brain and muscle fibers(protein cells functioning) to accomplish such movements. It truly is the same idea, two sides of one coin. We can, and also cannot.
That's right, it's kind of paradoxical in a way.
Thank you for this series. I think non-self is one of the more advanced topics and something I find difficult to comprehend, and much of that has to do with western logic. We often think the answer must be yes or no, that there must be a single cause to every effect, that things must be black or white. The concept of being both yes and no or neither never tends to come to mind, not to mention the ineffable. Changing how I think of things isn't easy. The most valuable lesson that I may have learned from Buddhism is learning to recognize what I do not know. It would be easy to assume non-self means we aren't responsible for our actions because we are never the same person, and that would be far from what the Buddha taught.
Yes. My sense is that the Buddha's views on the self were nuanced, and all too often people want to pigeonhole him into less nuanced alternatives. But such is life! 😄
The issue cleared up for me when I changed my way of thinking from "the body (feelings, etc) is not the self" to "the body is not me or mine". I'm not sure the Buddha claimed that we have no control over the body, just that we can't will the body to not get sick, age or die. These are just the obvious ones but there are all kinds of ways the body is acting in every moment without our conscious intention or "control." It's only when a behavior happens to follow an intention that we imagine that we have control. But if we investigate those intentions, which are an aspect of sankhara, we find that those are also not me and not mine. They arise from causes and conditions just like everything else. The five kandhas are dharmas just like everything else. They belong to nature so it is not appropriate to cling to or identify with them.
Yes, exactly so Jonathan.
I am so grateful that you talk more about the topic on non- self in two steps.
As you have pointed out first step we reflect with intuition on the five aggragates as to see whether we cqn find a owner or the controler with ,within or outwards from the five aggragates.Then thats known as developing the vipaassana meditation via the characteristic of 'anattta'(in pali its called Anattanupassana)
Then the second part we can do vippassana by reflecting on the characteristic of Anichca (The impermanent nature of five aggragates),Then gradually we can relize that the nature of all things are that, they appear from no where and dissapear without any remainders whatsoever.
One similes recollect me made by the Buddha was that, the world is like a candle.light, the light came to existence from no where due to a chemical reaction by the some elements, and exist only until the fuels remains,at the it dissapears without being remaining anything.
And even when we see the existence of the candle light while it burning.It actually is not the thing as we see with normal eye view.
If you closely attend on the light with intuition,We can see that this moment, propene + oxygen + strip make the light by chemically reacting together.
Moment to moment it repeata the same process, all those regularly exhausting.So does the light keep changing all the time.the light we see this moment, wont get in next moment,same repetitive process circles around.
We cannot control over light,means that we cant keep the same light through out the time.even though it seems as the same light passes moments,actually it is not,then in that nature we can see within that process it is no use of claiming possession over it.that eventually make us realized about the characteristic of anatta or non self.
Same principle,apply for five aggragates
Exactly so. It looks like the same thing over time, but it really isn't.
Thanks for the "background information"! But partial control or perfect control - it stays a somewhat odd argument in my humble opinion. The impermanence-argument is more convincing to me, and I'm looking forward to your video on that...
😊🙏🏻
PS: _Analytical Buddhism: The Two-tiered Illusion of Self_ by Miri Albahari is a wonderful "modern" approach regarding the No-self subject. Highly recommended! 🙂
Yes it is a rather odd argument ... I'm not sure how often its actually repeated in the suttas. Maybe something to look into.
@@DougsDharma i have looked for other places - if you find any please email me charles.dacosta@gmail.com
Thank you. The distinction between partial control and perfect control is helpful.
My pleasure, Matt.
FINALLY ONE MORE IS COMING NEARBY! congratulations brother.
and Thankz so much.
There are at least two trails that lead to the top of this Mountain... And this is my approach, i hope you read all my comments, i commented in two more videos of you... please thank me for that, i walk a lot alone and experiencing a lot of difficulty, i was expelled from the college where i studied here in Brazil before completing my degree, now i'm trying to complete a book - that I'm writing - so i can later get some job because my little family is still getting sick and my suport is fallout..., sad country... but i hope you'll read my comments and consider the insights that will emerge from them (My coments, they are in the following videos: Real Self in Early Bud... and The Buddha on Self and Non-self)
This was great and so informative (as always)! Thanks, Doug! I'm already looking forward to the next video. :)
Awesome, thank you!
I am always waiting for your vedios ....😊🙏🌼❤️it develops my English knowledge also....this RUclips channel is one of my favourites...
It's my pleasure Gayathri. I'm glad it also helps with your English! 🙏😊
thank you so much for all these information , your videos are life changing !
You're very welcome! 🙏😊
11:39
Exceptional work, Doug. Also appreciated the recommendation about Ehrman’s work
Thanks Juro! Yes, I love Ehrman's stuff.
Thanks Doug for your kimd efforts...Most important thing we need to keep in mind is..buddha did not conduct this sermon to five deciples untill they have attained the stream entry..So this sermon is conducted to an awakened group of deciples, where things can be far deeper and out of our thinking pattern..😊🙏🌹
Thanks Kusal. It seems they weren't awakened at the beginning of the sermon, since only Koṇḍañña was a stream enterer after the First Sermon.
it seems to me that the Buddha was talking about the possibility of having control over not falling ill, aging or dying. The power to escape suffering and common dissatisfaction, so to speak.
And of course we don't have that power.
The fact that we are subject to this fundamental unsatisfaction, dukkha, This shows that it is outside the scope of a possible supreme self, a supreme controller, a supreme owner.
Elsewhere the Buddha said that it would be better to take the body for a self rather than consciousness, because the body has a certain stability over time, that consciousness doesn't have - it changes every moment.
in the final analysis, these three characteristics of reality are linked : impermanence, dissatisfaction and non-self..
we have no control, so the thirst to take ownership and identify at this heap of impermanence and Insatisfaction and non-self is vain.
It's perhaps an in-depth extension of the first speech. Therefore liberation does not lie in the realization or fantasy of a supreme instance within or without ourselves (Self or God the Creator, the Savior), but in the extinction of thirst.
@ 00:47 'The Coffee Sutra' 😅 ☕️ Never seen Doug swigging fine java during a video 😅 - What is your favorite blend for helping reflection / meditation ? Buddha beans 🫘? 😅
😄😄
Thanks Doug for shedding light on this topic as I do find something strange in the argument without the subtext you mentioned.
Body movement is partially controlled by our mind (some are autonomous). Our mind is in turn conditioned by the input from the six senses plus latent tendencies (bias). These have been scientifically studied. Since they are all conditional phenomenon, there is no real self (sakaya) that controlled the body and mind perfectly. Real self is just a fabricated concept out of the proliferation of ideas. (sakaya ditthi)
Yes, exactly so YH Seow. 🙏
This is indeed a very interesting topic and very thought provoking.
I think that In order to have complete/perfect control of something, one must have complete possession of that something and one must know that something extremely well. One does not possess one's physical body nor know it well. For sure, our very bodies have so many co-habitants that we don't even know of, and for sure, we don't really know what is going on with our bodies, within and without, most of the time if not all the time. For these reasons, I don't think we really possess our bodies at all, we are simply co-habitants in these bodies and try to use these bodies to reach our goals, just like the other co-habitants. Simply put, our bodies are facilities that we share with many other living beings, including good and bad bacteria, mites, etc. When we move our bodies or meditate or even just think, we are simply using the body to allow us to perform the tasks. When the Buddha might have mentioned how we could control ourselves during meditation, I think He might have meant the control of our approaches and methods in meditation practice, not the body per sec. Such control applies to all our thinking and other actions as well.
As the other four aggregates are concerned, they are closely tied to the bodily functions. our senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste, feelings), cognition, volition, and consciousness, are all influenced by what the body is exposed to. However, the one exception is our consciousness aggregate which is not simply consciousnesses related to the 6 senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste, feeling, perception), but also the consciousness of accumulated knowledges for our thinking and for our judgement on what is right and what is wrong what what to do with such knowledge.
Come to think of it, our physical bodies are nothing but a labyrinth of never ending chemical reactions that drive the biological activities. To begin with, all individuals have the same kind of physiology. What makes every living individual distinctive from one another is the mind. Our minds in turn affect our moods and thus our physiology, thus controlling our thinking and actions. In the Upanisads that Doug has quoted, "self is the controller of the mind." what is that "self" who is present within? In the Mahayana sector, the consciousness aggregate includes a 7th consciousness called the "manas" which is essentially the "ego". This ego influences our judgment and thus we evaluate everything with our ego as a measuring stick. The consciousness aggregate also includes an 8th consciousness called the "alayavijnana". which is sort of a storehouse consciousness. It represents the latest evolved consciousness of a living being that includes the 7th consciousness. It seems such 8th consciousness in theory constitutes the concept of "self". However, one of the main themes in the Buddha's teachings is to release ourselves from the attachment of "self", and "self" itself is the epitome of attachment to everything else.
Yes that's right Andrew, and thanks for your comment!
From what i read about the "non control" of our bodies: it was ment in this context:
Our bodies grow, age, fall ill and die - all without any control on our part over them...
If we had control over the body - we could become young and heathy, but we cannot.
Well yes, that's what I say in the video as well. But you don't find this in the text, it's a later interpretation.
With respect to the body, the heart beats on its own, we cannot control it. Even if you try to stop breathing, eventually your body will take a breath. When you’re hand touches a hot pot, it moves before you decide to move it. If our body is the self, how does it move without direction from the self? So, perhaps we can say that our true self has influence over the body but, the body isn’t actually the self.
Yes, good points!
This morning, during my meditation practice, I reached the very same conclusions that the Upanishads: that this "Observer" we have inside of us (the thing that observes the thought during meditation, the thing that detaches itself from feelings and emotions and so on) is actually the ultimate thing. I've been looking for the source of the feeling/sensation of "I", and I noticed that I can observe my thoughts and my feelings, and detach from them, but I cannot, for the life of me, "observe the observer", or "watch the watcher" as it were. Why, though? Well, the conclusion seems to be that it's because such a thing is "ME": the thing that gives me the feeling of myself, the thing that connects me through all periods of my life, and which would be a part of the "divine essence" that pervades reality itself - and this "divine essence" would be the thing Schopenhauer called The Will: the "force" that sustains reality and existence itself.
However, it does not feel satisfying. It does not make me feel enlightened or blissful. It give me a powerful nagging feeling that I'm missing something, that there is something OFF. And it is terribly annoying, because it doesn't go away. I believe this is what the word "dukkha" means, right? The wagon's wheel is off, and so the ride it bumpy.
But how the heck do I fix this? I feel like I broke my mind.
Well, the Buddha would say that's another feeling, sensation, and construction that has to be got through.
@@DougsDharma I think I got through that. The fact that I can't observe the observer is simply because the observer is not there. It's not a thing. It is a mental construct that only exists when I focus my attention on it. It feels like it has always been there because it's a constant experience, but that doesn't mean the thing itself is always there. It is created by the mind, through a confluence of processes, and only when there's direct attention devoted to it. Otherwise it does not exist at all.
That works for me 😅
I heard something about RUclips disabling the dislike button. I disliked this video to test what they meant, I didn't actually "dislike" the video though. So if you see a dislike, I didn't mean to do it and I'm sorry! I liked it right after lol keep the great content coming!
😄🙏
Great video, Doug! Is it also possible that the word which we translate as "control" may have had a more far-reaching meaning in the original language?
Perhaps so, though the word "control" has a pretty broad meaning even in English.
Control and ownership are topics made very interesting by Graeber’s Debt: the first 5000 years. Lots chew on there, even if I think he saw characterized Buddhism by Mahayana tradition.
Maybe the concept of not having control over our body is meant in a sense that we can't stop or slow down aging, prevent sickness or any other kind of physical weakness that we would endure during our lives.
Edit: I commented in the middle of the video! I just heard you bring up that "aging" point at the end! So maybe I should practice patience next time! :D
😄It happens to us all!
Sadhu sadhu
Thank you!
My pleasure! 🙏😊
Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu 🙏🙏🙏
🙏😊
This does excite one to reason. I concur that it is not that complicated, the body has no stable age or accomplishment. It's an illution in a myriad of illusions.
That we can put food in our mouths or are helpless is not relevant to our being more or less of anything. we're helpless and it's OK. Know the mind.
Thanks for your comment, gary!
You hit the nail on the head. There are many different conceptions of what a self is and one argument is not going to work against all. This other argument considers the conception where self is not static, but we have perfect control over changes to it. In some sense it is private. I think this is the Christian view that is used to justify free will. I recognize that I am not a Christian theologian of course.
Well yes, it's similar to the Christian view of so-called "libertarian free will", though to be fair that view actually stemmed from ideas in classical Greece.
@@DougsDharma I believe that the Greeks also had idea of God as inert and unmoving as well. That would be similar to Atman too, I believe.
Buddhism, in a nutshell, is that we all suffer and can end suffering by right thinking. Focus on these two truths.
If self is constantly changing, there is no (permanent) self . Here, self is our "identity."
Nice video Doug. BTW, at the 11:40 mark I heard something funny :)
Thanks Andrés! I don't hear anything special there, but I may be missing it! 😄
Knew I’m not the only one with a coarse mind hehe. F-find :)
In all seriousness, thanks for the video, Doug. Sadhu sadhu sadhu to your work 🙏🏼
hello Doug, were good Vedio. One request is there sir. about the Brahminical source you are using. Recently there are some studies suggest that Buddhism was first organise religion according archological findings
Hmmm ... I don't really see how that could be the case since there were religions in places like Egypt long before Buddhism. (Not to mention the religion of the Vedas in India).
yes sir, I am talking vedas and upnishad. There were written much later than that. there oldest records of the scriptures is of 15th century(Acc to UNESCO site). So taking reference from this text. we should be carefully about it. much more research needed in western academic circle.
@@saugamathazine1959 We don't usually date a belief by the age of its oldest existing physical material. Many beliefs -- including those of Buddhism -- are much older than their existing physical examples would indicate.
@@DougsDharma yes many belief are much older than material existence. In case of buddhism it's roots can see from harappan civilisation. They have there own letters (script) which is not deciphered yet. After that vedic period cames which say that knowledge were orally transfer to generations to generations.
The true-self (Atma/Brahman) is the one that *witnesses* all that is unfolding....(in mind and body and world through life times and beyond). The true-self has nothing to do with having any *control* on whatever is unfolding.
What is unfolding is all result of nothing but Karma (i.e. dependent origination).
Thanks Doug for all the great work you are putting out!
My pleasure ViKSha! 🙏😊
by control the Buddha means a stable state which can not be established within the four aggregates. the word control is what you are misunderstanding.
Guess this refutes or contradicts the point about the self being the inner controller
Yes, I think that's what the Buddha's trying to do.
Doug, I'm curious why you took the "subtext" from the Upanishads angle here. I have read and practiced a bit with the Anattalakkhana Sutra as well as the Nadi Sutta/River Sutra and these, at least to me, are self-evident that the Buddha is not referring to our ability to move our bodies but rather to make our bodies how we want it to be. Same with the other aggregates. Just curious.
Right, well the Buddha is talking about making our bodies how we want them to be, but this is ambiguous. We can make them how we want them to be in certain respects, but not others.
@@DougsDharma Not criticizing it but it just never occurred to me - I think it's because the focus is on "constant" and "not constant" - changing or unchanging - so when I look at that, I think about the body, mind, etc aging and changing across time. It doesn't bring to mind the obvious fact that I can move my body. Again, I enjoyed the video and thought it was good ... it just kind of struck me.
The argument from change is a separate argument in the sutta, which I’ll discuss in the next video. 🙂
If you just relate what he said on the context of the era and lifestyle of the time and as well as of his other teachings in reference to, it’s a very straightforward inference to understand in this setting he is not talking about a generalized conception of control like a modern American or English thinking speaker would think of but more of a material _possession_ or having the resulting ability of exerting your will or “control of” a thing. On top of this to be more precise of his meaning he is alluding to the idea of not just any possession, but a concept of _absolute_ possession.
Why is this more an accurate assumption? Well to understand material concept like possession and value of those possessions, there would have to be a certain level of faith, or trust in the persistence of the existence of those very things. Tying his first lecture was of impermanence, and reality’s nature of impermanence he uses this concept of absolute control to show its very fallacy that there can be no such thing as absolute control as all things are impermanent and therefore nothing can be permanently possessed and controlled and therefore there is nothing truly to base a permanent self on.
Right, the notion he seems to be working against is that of absolute control, as of a self.
@@DougsDharma I feel like a lot of the trouble comes in when translating the text of one language to another the context and meaning may seem missing, lost, or misunderstood to people who never encountered this language barrier before. But as a person who never fully learned the mother tongue of their parents the interpreting of more than just words comes second nature and automatic.
Please make a video on the Buddhist (specially Madhyamaka) view of deep sleep if possible. The Vedantic view of deep sleep (sushupti) is problematic and not very convincing, because it fails to answer the questions like, if there's no duality in deep sleep, how is it possible to come back from it? etc.
Madhyhamaka Buddhism is a bit later than most of what I deal with, but I might do something on that eventually. I did a video awhile back dealing with the ālaya-vijñāna and the bhavaṅga that gets into some of that, though the ālaya-vijñāna is a Yogācāra concept rather than Madhyamaka: ruclips.net/video/175JTI5AXc4/видео.html
@@DougsDharma Thanks 🙏
Dear Doug,
thanks for your interest in Dharma diffusion.
But I would ask you something, do you really believe that the Buddha, the ultimate of the enlightement, would teach to direct disciples through argumentations??
The sphere of influence of a Buddha is magnificent, he could influence and teach to your inner self directly, he could give you direct knowing of "Rigpa", that is why we should consider that teachings through argumentation were for the "common" people...
What is my point then?, I think that you could consider to mention that there are two ways of teaching, one is through argumentation and reflection, and the other is through direct openning of the mind to its true nature or "Rigpa" in tibetan, by a qualified master, for example a Rinpoche.
Blessings from Buenos Aires
Dany
Well it's not a matter of my belief Da ny, it's a matter of what we find in the suttas of early Buddhism: there the Buddha argued often and consistently with disciples and with people from other traditions. He didn't teach to the inner self directly, or at least if he did it's not mentioned as such. That's not to say such a thing never happens, it's just that we don't find it in early Buddhism.
@@DougsDharma you are right.
I only think that it could be useful to mention the other posibilities of "learning", I knew a person who used to meditate, but one day he went to a full week Dzogchen retire with a tibetan Rinpoche, and he was introduced directly to the knowing of the true nature of the mind or "Rigpa", and his inner life changed completely, but before that he couldn't imagine that possibility...
Blessings and thanks for your work
Dany
It is a coincidence that I have been thinking on the sermon all week and then you have a video. The consciousness is impermanent and prone to illness. It sort of has the implication that something that is not consciousness is permanent. Buddha never says there is something personal and permanent, though. It is kind of saddening.
Yes, nothing personal is permanent. Though that argument is more along the lines of the Buddha's second argument for non-self in his second sermon. I'll discuss that argument in the next video. 🙂
Impermenent also means it keeps evolving. Most of the great things happen only because impermenent.
You could learn knowledge and philosophy only because your consciousness is impermenent.
Is there a self outside body and mind?
Where would this self be found?
Atman, Jiva, Sthula.
Can I check something out with you, but please be brutally honest with me! If the 'mind' for whatever it actually is, is the 'creator' and 'organiser' of the various ideas that 'we' hold on to; that would suggest that the 'self' is an idea or a conceptualisation within the structure we call 'mind'; a way to make sense of the world or the universe that 'we' inhabit. But it seems all these ideas and concepts appear to be built 'within', from gathered information. If the 'mind' that is trying to make sense of the information separates off an 'idea of self', it doesnt mean that that 'thing' actually exists. For instance, colors only exist in certain conditions. So could the idea of a self be likened to the blue of the sky? Sitting on this bench by this church, 'I' appear as a 'self' and have a 'mind'. In 'reality' (although 'reality' is also just an idea) there is no mind, no church, no bench, no I, not even a reality to pin anything onto.......? But even hanging onto that view, would be clinging to a conceptualisation?
Well yes, though from an early Buddhist standpoint this doesn't need to be taken all the way to concluding that nothing exists. What we can say is that there are physical forms made up of ever-changing elements, there are ever-changing perceptions, ever-changing volitions, thoughts, and so on. These are conceptualized as "a mind" or "a self". Not all conceptions are wrong or misleading, though the conception of a self is.
What i understand from the Buddha's teachings is that "nothing is either real or unreal". What is unreal is our subjective view on everything. When different people have conflicting views on certain thing, each may claim his/her view is the real one. However, what is real is that nothing is permanent, including our views on anything. Everything is constantly in transition. They may appear to be the same from moment to moment, however, everything is undergoing chemical and/or physical changes every moment. Our minds are constantly changing too as well as we keep learning more and accumulating more knowledge constantly. For that reason, our "self" are constantly changing as well. Our current "Self" may be quite different from the one even just moments ago, and it may change moments later. On that note, what is real?
Have a coffee Doug is Doug.
Have saying Alpha Doug is Doug.
Have saying Omega Doug is Doug.
Have saying Nirvana Doug is Doug.
Have saying Nonself Doug is Doug.
Have saying Self Doug is Doug.
Doug enlighten Doug is Doug.
🙏
🙏😊
🙏🙏🙏
🙏😊
❤️❤️
🙏🙂
Id like to add on the whole lack of control of body thing.
We cannot stop seeing with our eyes open. Unless we can sleep at will on purpose or such. However illusions are something we cannot see past BASED ON PERCEPTION.. however.. there is that common vase illusion where theres either two faces kissing or a vase. Anal Watts said you cant see both at once. I damn well can. I tried this perceptual experiment before i saw the video just browing illusions. Then this guy says it cant be done and im like 🤦♂️ i see what you are getting across but its not truth.
As above so below
dough i m really surprised that you are predating upnishads and even vedas than buddhist sources without any proofs. buddha never talks about such text and never even mentioned that anywhere. perhaps we all know that vedas and upnishad language is vedic sanskrit and its daughter language sanskrit. and both of these languages are derived from prakrit languages by just doing some modifications to prakrit as panini the compser of sanskrit language himself said. so its really upsad me that you are also got stuck in the brahminical agenda of predating themselves. you believe me or not but there is litterally no proof about any vedic age brahmins just fit themselve anyhow in the dark age of Indian history but basically they do not have any History in India they were Just Outsider and composed there text based on the buddhist texts as we know that there where many thousands of brahmins who joined the buddhist sangha so they just copied everything from buddhism one such example is adishankara from 8th centuary and its obvious that there were many in the past too aswell.and as you have said making it as a logic that buddha is commenting on the upnishads why dont you just turn the situation that brahmins are commenting on what the buddha said to nullify him because this also makes sense as much as your logic. so please thinks about this also have a good day🙂😇
Sure, everyone was commenting on everyone else. The Buddha even mentions the Vedas in the suttas; he clearly knew them and several of the early Upaniṣads as well. This is well attested and accepted by scholars of the early material.
5:00 You're taking it too literally :) Try making your body Asian. Regrow a lost limb. We can control our limbs, but that is not what he was speaking about
Yes, I know. But try to forget all you know about later Buddhist teaching and put yourself there, listening to this for the first time. Wouldn’t these questions have arisen for you?
An-Atman ..... I think you are on an ok track - we must be missing something, this argument is strange -
As is, this sermon is just wrong, because most hindu views of Atman - it is not something we can control, it just exists. As is, this sermon would point to a fact the Buddha did not understand Atman.
Now the Buddha saying the "Atman is Not the body because .., is not the mind because .., is not a component of the mind or body, because ..!" That would be a better translation.
Yes, there certainly would have been more to say about the alternate viewpoint, but do keep in mind we’re not talking about 21st c., nor even medieval, Hindu beliefs but rather beliefs from c. 5th-6th C. BCE, among certain proponents of the earliest Upanishads. Those are the views to which the Buddha would have been responding.
@@DougsDharma i was. Atman is Brahman
Atman is just a fabricated concept from papanca, a proliferation of thoughts and ideas. It cannot be found to exist empirically.
@@halcyon2864 how would one really know? Through hearing, contemplating, verifying and experiencing it first hand. Otherwise, it is just speculation, postulation and proliferation of views.
@@yhseow neither one of was discussing what exists empirically.
We were discussing problems with an important sutra.
Seems like the center of confusion lies around the belief in free will. Wouldn't Buddhism see free will as an illusion? You talk about the action in which we are in control of, things like bending our arm and so forth, wouldn't this feeling of control be an illusion? It is simply a feeling we have. We feel like we are bending our arm but this bending of our arm is simply an effect with a cause, the cause being the intention. If you believe in free will then you assume that that intention is under "your" volitional control. But is it? Wouldn't the bending of the arm and the intention behind it be spontaneously generated by the brain? You become aware of an intention then the action happens, where is the doer? It seems to me that volition is just another appearance in consciousness, the same as any other feeling. Anger is not you it is an appearance in consciousness. Bending of the arm and the intention behind it is not you, it is simply an appearance in consciousness.
From Mahasi Sayadaw:
"While contemplating one notices a material process as object and a mental process of knowing it; and it is to that pair alone that the terms of conventional usage "being", "man", "women", "soul", refer. But apart from that dual process there is no separate man woman or being."
I did a video on free will awhile back: ruclips.net/video/Hf1E91yKtvQ/видео.html .
Not early than Buddha, coz there is no evidence or archeological findings or written inscription. Even the 4th century chines traveler fayang didn't mention anything like vedic culture in his writing, and early written text of barhminical religion date back between 12 to 14th century AD.