The Buddha on Self and Non-Self
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- The Buddha's teachings on the self and on non-self are some of his most subtle, interesting, and unique. We'll take a look at them in this video. We'll also compare the Buddha's view of the self with that of western philosophers David Hume and Derek Parfit.
✅ There is a very good video with Derek Parfit discussing his notion of personal identity and that of the Buddha here: • Derek Parfit discussin...
🧡 If you get benefit out of these videos and would like to lend a hand in exchange for fun benefits, check out my Patreon page at / dougsseculardharma
🧡 You can also make donations through: paypal.me/doug...
✅ Suttas mentioned in this video:
Sabbāsava Sutta (MN 2.8): suttacentral.n...
Ānanda, is there a self? (SN 44.10) suttacentral.n...
Authorities (AN 3.40): suttacentral.n...
Dhammapada "The Self" (Dhp. 157-166): suttacentral.n...
Udāna 5.1: suttacentral.n...
The All (SN 35.23): suttacentral.n...
The Characteristic of Nonself (SN 22.59): suttacentral.n...
The Snake Simile (MN 22.23-25): suttacentral.n...
-----------------------------
Please visit the Secular Buddhist Association webpage!
secularbuddhism...
My material can be found here:
secularbuddhism...
Check out my new free-mini course and other courses on early Buddhism, at onlinedharma.org/
@Kosem72 that gentleman has quite an opinion of himself doesn't he?
@Kosem72 From his website kathodos.com..
"FWIW, quoted from Kathodos:
"“Buddhism (modern) is an extremely sick religion inhabited by atheists, agnostics, and at best pantheists. They congregate together at ‘dharma-centers’, which are little more than outpatient mental wards for depressed materialists, and engage in idle chatter about attainment of oblivion and the denial of all things spiritual.' "
Whatever philosophy he is practicing is not very compassionate and I want no part of it.
Tell me a Buddhist country that is really kind .Be honest.
No such thing as "most unique".
May I ask what is your understanding of the meaning "rebirth" in Buddha's context? Does it mean reincarnation like many afterlife religious believers do? Or is it that because the whole world including ourselves is constantly changing, therefore we are constantly renewed or "re-birth"?
Because your explanation seems to makes logical sense with the latter. But then, it is not always necessarily comparable with Karma as sometimes we do good things and don't necessarily get good results. Also, when talking about previous or future lives doesn't seem quite right with the non-eternal self.
I think what the Buddha was trying to convey is that the idea of self is detrimental to our way of looking at life. The example that I'm about to give doesn't apply to me, but I think it's a good one. I could say "my name is John Doe. I'm great at sports but that's really the only thing I'm good for and I'll never be successful in any other areas of life. I have to dedicate my life to being a professional athlete as a result of that." That view of self can be detrimental because it can prevent you from exploring other areas of your life and becoming a better person along the way. I don't think the Buddha wanted us to have a mentality like the one that I mentioned above. He wanted us to be open to all things and all situations. That in turn would cause us to become more open-minded and cause us to grow as people. I think the non-self mentality also has a lot to do with things being impermanent. If a person views themself as an athlete and nothing else, what happens when the person's athletic career is over? Who do they identify as? I think the goal of having a non-self mentality is that things are always changing. Your strengths and weaknesses will change, your views will change, your interests will change, etc. so it's very detrimental to cling to a certain characteristic about yourself. That characteristic will eventually go away at some point in your life.
Exactly so, Afanasi, well put. That's a huge part of it.
Steven Bari So essentially are you saying that it is impractical in life to follow "anatta" to the extreme, because this would lead to not trying to identify with anything, so not trying to be ambitious and acquire a way of living (ie a job, or career, or way of life), and therefore never achieving anything? If so, my thoughts too, but I think "anatta" is a useful philosophy to fall back on in life when you cling too hard to a certain way of living that is detrimental to yourself. For example, Lee Chong Wei is a world class badminton player who dedicated a lot of his life to pursuing the gold olympic medal for his country. Just recently he announced his retirement from professional badminton citing medical advice that warned that his cancer would come back should he continue to train very hard. Had he ignored this advice, he would have done so by clinging to his identity as a professional badminton player, and this would have sacrified his other identities such as being a father or a husband. But spending time with his family was also important to him. I think he made the right decision by retiring. Whether or not he is a buddhist, or follows "anatta", not being too clingy to one identity has helped him. But of course, he could never have become a world class badminton player in the first place without his dedication and persistence in following his identity as a badminton player. It's a balance, I guess.
♥️♥️♥️
His Goal is making human life less suffer, When you have self, you always want more for the self, So you cling for more thing, and in the end you can't let go all of that, result is that you will get suffer, that's like a circle noone can get out, except Buhdda. If there is non self, what ever you do won't make you suffer because Who's suffer here?
have you had any new enlightenment since? just curious. I enjoyed your view.
The way this makes sense to me. My body is an object. No different than any other object. So attachment to your body is like attachment to an object. It's impermanent and will cause suffering particularly because of its impermanence.
Exactly so A Ahlquist. Well put.
@@DougsDharma Thanks for the above. I think I get tripped up constantly on this following point though: If I am not the body, and I am not the mind, and "I" am simply an observer of these and of life itself (we are all pure consciousness), then I understand that I should try and remain detached from my own thoughts, and the things that happen to me in life, both good and bad. This body is simply a vessel and I am a witness to this life. However, in daily life, you need to work, interact with friends, family, etc, and this requires a "thinking" and an "intelligence". If I am simply the "observer", then "who" is driving me? What is this "personality" or "thing" within me that drives me, and that we obviously have to use in daily life? Does Buddhism say that a "personality" exists, but is just always changing, and that we should not be attached to it? Or is it saying that even that "personality" doesn't exist? If I want to be active in my own life, and not just an "observer", how can I do that? Thanks!
I think this is why mainstream media is so obsessed with body image and thin ideal etc, our bodies are not ourselves but yet we are told our bodies are all we are worth. Get everyone obsessed over being thin or muscly, or getting plastic surgery, so people can never realise the truth.
As a buddhist I personally know only few people will even consider to see our body as just an object. Its that much of a deep understanding. You sir are smart.
@Channel Dark Blue should secular mean non-ritualistic?
Thank you, this just shows how far ahead Buddha is in the topic of metaphysics. I understand that people want to take direct value lessons from these as can be seen from the comments, but i think this is one of the most important things to understand about Buddha himself. He has a very objective examination on existence. This touches the philosophical side of me, and I'm glad that this is the kind of analysis the secular approach has been doing.
🙏😊
Hi Doug. This week I stumbled upon one of your RUclips videos and it started me down a path of learning. I’ve been interested in Buddhism for years, but have never taken the initiative to learn more. I have a Christian upbringing, found myself losing my faith and becoming atheist, and eventually shifted into a more agnostic and humanistic world view. I had never considered secular Buddhism and I’m pleasantly surprised with how closely the Buddhist teachings align with the way I’ve come to understand the world, myself , and humanity.
I just finished watching your “New to Buddhism” playlist. Your videos are easy to understand and I appreciate you making and sharing them. Your demeanor is kind, calm, and collected. I really enjoyed listening to you speak. I have borrowed some recommended books from my local library and am almost done with the first. Thanks for helping me find this path. Wish you all the best.
That's great to hear, Alex. It's my pleasure! And all the best to you on your journey! 🙏😊
True buddhist teachings don't constitute a religion at all. It's just a set of thoughts and how you relate with the universe and environment around you.
True buddhists are really realists. They engage with the world around them as it is presented to them without the usual hyped fanfare of other religions. It is seeing and calling things the way they are and being grounded in reality. Most non religious people are realists which is why they find a lot of common ground with buddism.
Thanks, Doug. I've been practicing Buddhism since the 1980's. The concept of Anatta is probably the most arcane aspect of the Buddha's teachings. I found the Buddha to be the ultimate reductionist. Some of his concepts are in line with the idea of atoms and molecules, or basic particles, concepts and forces. He called them 'skandhas'. Anatta was part of the Buddha's rejection of the Brahman system, where Brahmins used the concept of Atman to control and guilt-trip the population. Similar to how Christian popes and priests used the soul and guilt, to control and dominate. Besides not clinging to objects, the Buddha rejected clinging to any idea. Holders of views were seen as unskillful. The 'self' for Buddhists is the current way your skandhas are arranged. Once you die, your skandhas will separate, spread out into the universe. When you are re-born, some of your old skandhas will return, others will not. Hence your new body will look different (you might be male instead of your prior female). Those skandhas that carry forward (or attract) your Karma to your new-born body, might only impart some of the traits that your prior 'self' had. It will also have aquired different/new skandhas, to make you a unique individual. Because the Buddha's fundamental teaching was that all is impermanence, to be consistent, he had to claim the self was also impermanent. Hence the emphasis on the term "Anatta". The Buddha would use the term 'self' in a positive sense, but only for pedagogical purposes. Of course, because the Buddha never made clear if he was pro-self or anti-self, we will never know what he really thought. Assuming he was clinging to a particular view. Maybe having a self is an unimportant distraction. An even bigger problem is how to define 'self'. There are countless ways to look at 'self'. Is it your ego? Is it the Atman, that is the quiet observer at the centre of your mind's perception of the universe? Is it the sum of your neural activity? These kinds of questions cannot be answered (yet). The Buddha wisely refrained from wild speculation and endless regression.
Thanks for your input Paul. I have a whole playlist on the topic of self and non-self in Buddhism in case you are interested: ruclips.net/p/PL0akoU_OszRjA9n0-U24ZCpfEQVFxeGz2
@@DougsDharma Thank you very much, Doug. My Buddhism is rusty, so I'll take a look at it. My comments above are sure to be somewhat inaccurate. The concept of the 'self' was going to be the subject of a Master's thesis a few years ago. Contrasting Advaita Vedanta with Buddhism. Water under the bridge, now. I still love learning about the topic, though.
@@paulh2468 The point is not metaphysics, reductionistic or otherwise, but a practice, a way to examine experience. You can think of it like a flowchart, if you like.
While the bodymind has settled down, putting away its frame of reference to the world, consider it in-and-of-itself.
Note a feeling (sensation or feeling tone), for example. Has it persisted? Yes/No. -> Is it constant? Yes/No -> Is it satisfying? Yes/No -> Is it distressing? Yes/No -> Is it stressful when it ends? Yes/No -> Is it worthy of claiming as me or mine? Yes/No
(I know that's not really a good graphic representation of an actual flowchart, but hopefully the point was conveyed.)
This can be done with the breath, states of mind, or objects of mind.
what is the difference between self and soul? do buddhists believe in the latter?
Nicely done. There are as many truths as there are eyes to see one. I like your point of view. 🙏🏼
7:25 In a nutshell: Treat others the way you want to be treated.
So simple, and I've heard it my whole life. I've started teaching it to my children now that they're getting old enough to understand it. and here it is in my spiritual journey too. Mind blown. I love the synchronicities.
Yes, right! The golden rule is golden indeed!
When I had my NDE I had awareness of pure love and support. There was nothing I could distinguish myself from anything. I know that sounds odd but there aren't sufficient words to explain what the "otherside" was like. Buddhism has the best explanation for what I experienced. It was total formless black (not dark as in bad) expanse and my own awareness of that. I felt loved, comfortable, and free with/in everything.
Great. This is in Vedanta called nirvikalpa samādhi, as an experience. As an ontology it is known as nirguna brahman. In Zen it is called "black like lacquer" ---- anyway, congratulations! you encountered your true self nature or svabhāva. The true nature of what Wittgenstein calls the philosophical I. The I that is not an object. Everything else confronts me but the I.
You were escorted to brahman. Please check out the Upanishad literature. The Bhagavad Gītā also treats with this. While enlightenment the Buddha says "is not an experience" it is understanding. Wittgenstein also speaks of it as "before experience". This means that the true self nature is unobjectifiable, even as the I is not held out before us. It is us.
Excellent stuff. Since I also have a background in Western philosophy I find your take cuts through a lot of confusion out there.
Thanks a lot SmileBot, glad you found it helpful!
Excellent. Thank you.
When I think about it, it is fascinating how we cannot define "me" without "mine" and "mine" without "me". This circular dependency is at the core of everything.
Yes that's right Value, they all link together.
To understand what happens with the Self , begin changing our idea of a fixed , defined and permanent self for a changing and dynamic self that we can’t hold.
If the self is made out of changing elements , then the self itself is changing all the time. You can’t grab what’s always changing. The self is a continuous flux of changing elements moment to moment . With that idea of the Self it’s easier to let go attachments or aversions . The fixed and permanent self likes this , dislikes that , has an eternal and unchangeable way of thinking , feeling , knowing and being. But what if that self is seen as something dynamic that rises and vanishes in every moment?… Then I can be more free from what causes suffering. What do you think Doug?
That sounds exactly right to me Jorge. We can hold our likes and dislikes with a lighter grip. And not incidentally, if we look at others that way too we can see them not as immutable entities but also as ever changing bundles of mental and physical properties.
Not anything do with the Buddhas words. But I think some of the self stays permanent but buried below the rest that's constantly changing and pushing whatever permanence there is deeper and deeper but comes to the surface sometimes.
Writing my diss on cross cultural theories of personal identity, sometimes its nice to just hear someone say what you've been reading over to make sure you're not completely missing the point. Very good video.
Thanks Lugus, and best of luck on the dissertation!
@@DougsDharma thank you! Been reading a bit more today during work, hope to properly dig in and write some stuff soon enough
I have been watching your videos for hours. In fact, to save time, I am starting to keep the Videos on while working on the computer. That way I can listen to the Audio. Great videos with great in-depth contents. These are high-quality professional videos. Please keep up the good work Let us meet and let us plan something big for the sake Buddhism.
Thanks very much for your kind comments Barua. I'm glad you're finding them helpful! 🙏
Thanks Doug, I like that teaching of "not I, not mine, not myself." It's useful to hear the subtle differences between statements of what I had always taken to be one idea.
Thanks a lot Evan Hubbard, glad you found it helpful!
Non self is the one part of the Buddhist philosophy that I have difficulty wrapping my head around. I keep coming back to this video because I thought you did the best job of explaining it. I understand the concept of non self, but when I try to dig deeper into the philosophy especially during vipassana meditation I often confuse myself.
I thought you did a great job of explaining it after the 13 minute mark of the video. That's my understanding of it. I think the whole message of non self is a way of letting go of clinging to certain ideas about yourself.
Thanks Afanasi, yes it's a way I think of getting out of the self-directed mindset, clinging to ideas about oneself or grasping at things as "mine". I wouldn't get too involved with it if it confuses you, since it's really a pretty difficult, advanced teaching. It'll come. 🙂
Its a very difficult subject, even alara kalama meditated full time the whole of his life failed to understand, but at least it make u stronger u Can let go a car burnt if its not yours right?
@@munafiksekali6158
It's not difficult at all.
It's just that the belief that there is a center to consciousness, that there is an observer of thoughts, is wrong. The "I" that you think you are is just a repeating character appearing in thoughts. There is no one thinking or experiencing, just experience itself.
I rarely write a comment, but I really enjoyed your take on the difficult topic of no self.
Thank you!
Well thanks so much for taking the time, Ed! Glad it was helpful. 🙂
The first time I read about self/no self it almost gave me a headache. Now, I just try to relax around the ideas and they don't seem contradictory or mutually exclusive to me as they did years ago. Thank you.
That's great to hear, Nowhere Man. Yes, I don't think they are at all contradictory. It's a matter of nuance.
In my own mind, there seems to be thought/feelings roiling around, and a spotlight, or throne and once a thought is on the throne it is me.
I am reading a book about it and I spent the whole day trying to figured this subject out. Thanks for sharing your knowledge about it . 😊
Great, thanks for letting me know Gleiciane! 🙏
Can actually explain some stuff if you want
you can think this way: in your body These is no self, can not find self in your body, apply this to your feeling and your thought and you will get peace, thanks for your video
Yes that's right! 🙏😊
I'm glad to hear this, Doug! This idea that there is no self was a major obstacle for me to fully accept and understand the practice and "philosophy" of Buddhist meditation. I think most people also have problems with the idea of Karma and Rebirth, but these concepts are irrelevant to the practice of meditation, whereas the issue of self is always highlighted by meditation teachers (like Joseph Goldstein and his disciple Sam Harris).
I would just add to your excellent video that just because our control is limited (to focus on breath, for example) it doesn't mean we have no control at all. After all, if we had no control, we couldn't force ourselves to focus on the breath for even 2 seconds to begin with. Moreover, it is self-evident to me that a "self" (the mechanism responsible for observing thoughts and sensations) exists independently of the thoughts and sensations. It is not like if you throw a bunch of feelings and thoughts, you suddenly have a "self." The self is the thing that observes and "selects" all of these mental phenomena and is independent of them.
Yes that's right, understanding what the self is and is not is central to Buddhist thought and practice. It's often misunderstood since it's complex and subtle.
After a while I thought that there was no self, but i'm starting to understand the paradox in the Buddhas teachings I think
Yes, it's a subtlety. There is no permanent, unchanging self or essence to who we are. It's only change.
Buddhism's Anatta and Hinduism's Atman are both right.
If you look in Egoistic view of the soul/self Buddhism is right, It is just the ego that wants to see the soul the way it wants as part of itself and identity, it doesn't exist.
But if you see the soul/self that is untouched, beyond your identity, it exist on its own, it is universal, you can't have control over it you only have to be dissolved in it. It is reconciled. There is a soul you can't hold on it, it will hold you it will guide you.
Thanks RoiF. That sounds very much like the Upaniṣadic notion of Atman.
@@DougsDharma I also noticed similarity between description of atman and of buddha nature. For me they are same, just differents words have been used... and methods to achieve them
@@Kubaaa555 No it is not. Atman is different anatta
Hi, Doug! I find that the Buddha's view that says all that we can know is the object of our experience but we cannot identify ourselves with the object of experience is similar to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy's view on self as context. ACT states that we all have thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc that are constantly changing. Despite this, there is an enduring sense of self that experiences these changing states. As such, we cannot identify the self with these changing states. The self is the context to which we experience them.
Btw, Im very happy to share that I found a Buddhist teacher who is teaching me about Buddhism one-on-one. He is from the Pureland Buddhism Center.
Glad you found a teacher you like! 🙏
I need to listen to this talk a couple more to digest fully, and hopefully I can grasp your message..
Thanks for sharing...💝🌻
Sure Pauline, I also have other videos on the same topic that you can find in my playlist on self and non-self, they might help illuminate other aspects: ruclips.net/p/PL0akoU_OszRjA9n0-U24ZCpfEQVFxeGz2
@@DougsDharma thanks very much...
Great video Doug, love it how you compare the different views. Thanks!
My pleasure Dominique, thanks for your comment!
Thank you for this profound video! Everytime I can take a lot of new things from them! I think it’s also intressting to see Buddha as a human being with mistakes and flaws.. even it’s hard for the ego…
Yes, and glad you enjoyed the video! 🙏
What about the notion that Shakespeare articulated when he said the world is but a stage and we are all actors in it?
This concept makes sense to me. Similar to an actor who plays many roles during their career and develops their craft to become better at it, so too do human souls live many lives to achieve the same end.
That is to say, that the path to enlightenment is blazed over many lifetimes as different people in varied circumstances to be exposed to the kinds of challenges necessary for growth.
I’m convinced there is a celestial guidance counselor who advises on what type of life we can choose in order to achieve our spiritual goals.
I’m basically a ‘C’ student.
Yes, the idea of our taking on different roles through time is also a good analogy.
I like at 9:45 how phenomenological Buddha is and the comparison with David Hume. I find it helpful to think along the lines of "self is just the awareness" of all the objects of awareness, which includes a "false self" made up of thoughts, feelings, sensations, perceptions, etc. that we usually think of as "me". I got that from another youtube person talking about similar topics.
🙏😊
Non self is most important theory, I remind it myself every time so that I am becoming more and more calm
Yes it's very, very important as we deepen our practice sagar.
I was actually thinking about this concept this morning and sure enough you did a video of it :)
😄I do my best to intuit what everyone wants!
3 observations
Dukkha
Anithya
Anathma= Cannot consider any thing within and around us that will stay permanently according to our wishes and desires..
Eg health
Age
Life
Love
People
Coz every thing is subject to change and decay and every thing ends in unsatisfactoriness
If you consider anathma and athma coceept here it doesnt jive with the rest of the two in this context(but u are right in your explanation of anathma) but in this threelakshana I feel the the other explanatiom can be applied to every thing and everyone around dead or live matter ..within oe without animals or human ..water earth or fire
These are 3 properties common to all matter in this earth deva brahma and niraya worlds..
Thank you for uploading these amazing video's, truly containing quality content. If you keep posting I'll keep liking /sharing!
You're very welcome eric, glad to be of service. Thanks for watching, liking, and sharing! 🙏
Brilliant video thanks- I find the focus on early Buddhism very helpful as I do find much of the later speculations and ideas just add complexity and seem ( to me at least) to go against the spirit of what the Buddha was trying to say. I’ll always be interested to know about the Abidharma, or Madyamaka or what Vasubandhu said, but I ( personally) don’t find it adds much to practice
Excellent explanation! The best I've heard so far. "Skillful", I should say. Many thanks!
You’re very welcome Gennadiy, thanks for watching and commenting!
I clearly didn't understand this concept. This video gave me some clarity. Thank you
I'm glad it helped!
Excellent review
🙏😊
Hey. I'm a former Theravada Buddhist and I came to dislike Buddhism a lot after I left it. It was part of my own self and then I left it. I consider leaving Buddhism created a opposition of it by me so that it meant expelling ir from my inventory of ideas and affirming the opposite. It's quite an interesting process. In this sense, the self is also demarcated by what is not within it, by being different from everything else.
This is the most distinct point of buddhism. It's also the first criteria in theravada buddhism to become a stream-enterer
Yes it's really what makes Buddhist dharma unique.
Amazing video you are very knowledgeable and it was great listening and absorbing it all
I appreciate that, Talon. 🙏😊
Thank you for this, Doug! 🙏
My pleasure Dustin!
Having an intellectual definition of "self" does not lead to the cessation of suffering. It can only lead to confusion. If one approaches the issue while focusing on the purpose of ending suffering, then one will find that the path to the cessation of suffering will lead one to understand Anatta (not a self). I found it helpful to contemplate, in the absence of the 5 hindrances, "what is the self that suffers?" The answer was surprising and liberating.
Yes I'm sure that can also be a very fruitful approach. Thanks Brian!
In fact, this idea of the self as an illusion rather than a fixed agent carried out from moment to moment has brought me more suffering...
If there's no "me" then what is the point of waking up every morning?
@@privateuser2283 There are quite a few upsetting realizations along the way. Learning the depths of dukkha is generally not pleasant. The bliss of meditation can provide joy and purpose beyond whatever reasons you currently use to get out of bed, but my experience is that learning of the happiness possible in Jhana can also make getting up and going to work difficult. If we walk the path to liberation, we must choose at some point whether to continue to struggle to do so in lay life, which is complicated, or give it all up and become a monk, which comes with its own challenges. I suggest not getting caught up in whether you exist. Take a good long look in the mirror, see that you are there, and leave it at that. Then, seek relief from suffering by application of the 8-fold path. Seek the truth of every situation, rather than trying to fit some idea of the self into an explanation for every situation. Your "wrong view" will make seeing the truth tricky by coloring your perceptions. So, don't grasp too tightly to whatever you find, because you may later find that you were mistaken. That's okay as long as seeking the truth remains the goal. If and when you see Anatta, it will not burden you, nor will it confuse you, nor will you care if you later change your mind about it.
There's a climpse of anatta literally ever time you pay attention. But I don't think that's the most blissful state possible. You can be totally lost in thought during a fun activity and better off than in the half second of non-dual awareness.
When you become enlightened and all suffering ceases it seems to me that you still have the work to do to create the greatest possible pleasure.
@@MrCmon113 I think we are talking about different things. "Non-dual awareness" is more often used to describe a hindu-like understanding of seeking oneness. Buddha described seeking the freedom from suffering found in noneness rather than oneness, which shares aspects of the oneness experience, but they are not the same. Oneness belongs to the brahmavihārās, which is quite nice but also still deluded. The bliss of Jhana far exceeds the pleasure of fun activities and is not limited to mere seconds. A true awakening experience at the first level of awakening is blissful, but with a feeling of immense relief unlike the pure bliss of Jhana. The bliss of full awakening is likened to the bliss of Jhana, yet greater, in the suttas, and that seems right to me, but I cannot tell you that from experience.
It is not the self that is an illusion. Rather, it is clinging to any type of self, be it a permanent, eternal self; or a temporary, impermanent self; or even a self that does not outright exist. Clinging to (and grasping for) any self - eternal, temporal or nonexistent, seperate or interconnected, the self as an eternal and permanent soul (Atman), or the self that is the body-mind, etc.... is an illusion. Therefore, renounce the self and all conceptions, beliefs and ideas, including both self (i.e., the self exists) and no-self (i.e., the self does not exist), in order to realize yourself as what you already are - enlightened, liberated and free! Namaste!
Right, it's not the self that's an illusion, it's the mental conception of a self that isn't reflected in anything permanent in the world.
Bogus.
You can grasp for a self and be aware of that thought pattern in a non-dualistic way.
Thanks for the video on self and non-self...This added some more clarity to my questions before on rebirth.
You're very welcome naga rajan.
Thanks for this, it is very appreciated. I am extremely far from being a buddhist scholar, but my (probably deluded) undestanding is that, the buddha indicated that for all intents and purposes, that there is something that could be viewed as a self, but that it is conditioned. Our ongoing experience from childhood to adulthood supports this perception of being something or someone that has a history and solidity. The buddha saw though, that this was / is infact just illusory and a conditioned perception, and that there is really no one at home. When the buddha chose not to answer the question as to whether there was a 'self or not' to the wanderer, he chose to stay silent so as not to confuse the poor guy who would have felt he had lost something he had formerly had, although the buddha's understanding was that in reality there was no permanent or abiding self. This was a compassionate act on behalf of the buddha.
Yes, the Buddha seems to have felt that the idea of a permanent self was an illusion, though the idea of *some* kind of self was a useful way to understand personal effort and practice. At least, he used the concept of self in discussions of personal effort and practice a lot.
Hi Doug, I just listened to this video again as, for some reason (my) mind has been drawn to this area of investigation for a while now. I have been thinking how the modern scientific approach seems to support the idea of a 'functional' but 'temporary' self that appears to reside alongside of the body. Even as I write this, there appears to be what we would call a physical 'body' plus this sense of 'me' of 'self'. At night when I sleep that relationship changes, as does the relationship if I have a head injury or become intoxicated in some way. From this I witness that my sense of 'self' fluctuates and even seems to disappear at times. My conclusion is that the construction that I call 'I' is to some degree unreal and also dependent on there being a fairly well functioning physical body and a fine chemical balance. A belief that
there is or isnt a self would be purely that. - 'a view', but my investigation leads to what appears to be more of a 'flexible conclusion' based on experience,' When I hear that the Buddha spoke of karma (actions) affecting future lives etc, I feel that I am once again put in a position of accepting or not accepting an idea or view that I can in no way experience in the here and now. It leaves me then processing those stories as I would do a 'religious view' or 'theory'. Can you offer a little light please?
This is an outstanding video ... thank you so much for your time and dedication to these topics .. especially giving so much of your time to trying to help others understand these ideas ... i hope the universe brings you all of your desires!!
.. to think that im watching this as a young adult 3 years after its creation.. makes me very thankful to you and technology i guess.. thank you so much
You're very welcome Bryce, and yes it's funny how quickly time passes!
This is delightful. Please keep making these.
I'll do my best Nathan!
@@DougsDharma I think about the relationship between non-self and Brahman a great deal. Maybe there really is a substantive distinction, but I can't help but wonder if it's purely semantic. What I take to be the central message of not only vedic philosophy, but also the philosophy of plato, aristotle and even Spinoza to large extent, is that the actual self and its interests are not what they first appear to be. We're deluded concerning what we are, what "others" are, and what the relationship between these entities entails, and for this reason we behave in a way that unwittingly generates suffering. Perhaps the best metaphor for Samsara is auto-cannablism: the Self bites itself in the ass, crying out in pain, all the while searching in the wrong places for the solution to its predicament (often making things worse out of ignorance).
When thinking about the similarities and differences between anatman (no-self) and Brahman, we should take into consideration that the appropriate definition of Brahman is "not this, not that": to understand that one is identical to brahman is to no longer identify with the transient, phenomenal appearances of Maya. Hinduism's refusal to give a precise definition of Brahman resembles the Buddha's hesitation to either confirm or deny the existence of self/selves. Liberated from fear and attachment to dying/illusory things, we no longer perceive others as "others", but as extensions of ourselves. Our capacity for love and power grow exponentially, and we are at last liberated from the nightmarish experiment that was duality. I'm not sure if the soteriological goals of various vedic traditions are really all that practically different.
I agree that Parfit's account of personal identity and how it grounds moral obligations is very, very similar to that of the Buddha (I also think that it's the most compelling). I can understand Buddha's hesitation to give a succinct definition of the Self. With that said, it's hard to talk about concepts like agency, flourishing and conversely suffering without giving some account of self-hood, even if a rough approximation is the best we'll ever do.
Perhaps prudence is key: for some the metaphor of selfhood is helpful, for others it is misleading and even dangerous.
Well yes. As for the relationship between non-self and Brahman, I think at the outset they were intentionally direct opposites: the Buddha developed his approach as a reaction to Vedic Brahmanism which felt that an awareness of the permanent, unchanging nature of the self was the route to liberation. The Buddha disagreed: there was nothing permanent and unchanging, not even a self. But later Buddhism in some of its incarnations came around to identifying this "non-self" or at least some understanding of self with a permanent, unchanging nature to all things.
@@DougsDharma thank you for explaining this.
This is my first video of yours I saw. Subscribed! Keep em coming!
Will do Willie, thanks for watching and letting me know!
Hi all..i’m not sure how i will be taken here but here goes.. my name is Jim, or (Musha Yasashii) Dharma name. I’m an ordained teacher. There’s a saying that if a person could understand one teaching “non-self” all the other teachings fall into place. Well, i died! Bled out but, i was out of body/still conscious! Watching everything, and wen i came back, everything was different! I had touched non-self! And i understand it! I do talks all over schools/universities, i know it’s rare, i know how it sounds, but i was given answers that i never could have if not for my death! 🙏🏻
🙏😊
You illuminated not only the Buddha's take on self and non-self, but also lead to the schools that developed based on these 2 notions. I have a few questions:
1) Recently I heard an unprecedented view that during the Buddha's time, the "self" is identified as the five aggregates. Is this correct? Any suttas to prove it? Is it also in Theravada teachings that one identifies the self as five aggregates? For example, do people say I am what I perceive and conceive during the Buddha's time?
2) Avidya is understood to be the phenomenal world - which includes, the five aggregates and external world that we perceive, again during the Buddha's time?
3) Buddha's explanation of rebirth is not logical in the sense that he describes life is like a lit candle. It burns all the way till the end but passes on the fire to another candle. The candle is different and so is the fire(is there a logical flaw here?) In this description, life goes on from one body to another - with no bardo or intermediate state(which we learn from Mahayana). In Theravada, there is no bardo. How do you balance the 2 extremes?
Hi happylum and thanks for the questions, I can’t answer them fully here but in short, the Buddha specifically rejected the view that the self is the five aggregates. The five aggregates are always changing so they can’t be the self in the brahminic sense. Avijja has to do with our misperceiving and misunderstanding the phenomenal world: seeing it as permanent, as satisfactory, as self. As for rebirth, the Buddha never gives a very detailed picture of how it happens, except that it is mediated by consciousness and the “gandhabba”. 🙏
Still trying to understand and will watch again but you really helped my beginning to understand thanks.
Great, glad to hear. It is a difficult and nuanced teaching, that's for sure. 🙏
Thank you!
16:25 Am i correct in thinking what you said here is that Buddha said to not see the self as metaphysical or ontological non-self (thereby create another type of self), but to take non-self as a (deconstructive) practice with which to approach our self which is always changing, by dropping all sorts of clinging and identifications?
That sounds right to me.
Been pondering this for years! Good job explaining this..
Great to hear lostinsamsara, yes it's a tricky thing!
I find one simple way to understand non-self is that to understand is that we are not what we think are. On a side note the doctrine of non-self is one of the many aspects which sets Buddhism apart from Hinduism yet there are still many Hindus that claim Buddhism is a part of Hinduism
Yes good point Sonam, exactly so.
Very good Doug. Its clear from what you say that a) the Buddha didn't have a systematic view of the self and b) this is because he would view a systematic approach to be unskillful and a distraction from the key tasks of liberating oneself from greed, hatred and delusion.
However, the western mind is still tempted to systematise; we left oral culture a long time ago and we are forced to confront, from our helicopter/textual view, the paradox that on the one hand, the Buddha would oppose any enduring sense of self because everything is impermanent (including interiority), while on the other hand, ethics requires that there is a self that takes control/responsibility over speech, action, effort etc.
So, there are two routes on from here. Either sila requires an ethical self because we are worldly beings, dependent on others and, the more we are enlightened, the more compassionate we become towards ourself and others. Just because we are impermanent and everything around us changes, we still have to assume responsibility for our self and for others in our midst, otherwise, as you say, there is no ground for ethical behaviour and "anything goes". Or, sila requires an ethical self because apart from being worldly beings, we have souls that survive death, accrue karmic residues across lifetimes etc. etc. This latter seems to be more the case with Mahayana versions of Buddhism (and in the Bon tradition).
Grateful for your thoughts on this Doug, even if veering in this direction is a least a bit unskillful!
It could be Jeremy. But as you note, the Buddha didn’t really think speculations in those directions was useful to the path. Better to spend time understanding unsatisfactoriness and its cause. 🙂
Excellent teaching, Doug. Thank you.
Thanks a lot Ricardo, glad you found it useful!
I think the apparent contradictory nature of the no-self philosophy fundamentally points out to our limitation of conceptualization of our mental states. The process of defining words and worlds is like looking without seeing. It disconnects us from ourselves and the world. In reality, words are symbols that we create to try to approximate a particular imagination or feeling. It seems natural to think through language and is useful because helps to communicate more or less what we are really thinking. However, this habit separates ourselves from the experience and for each concept we incorporates to our identity as a means to try to actualize what we call a Me becomes just another momentary illusion that we attach to ourselves. We become lost in translation. Take, for example, the label of being a Buddhist. what does that mean? Isn't the true follower of the Path the one who realizes there isn't such a thing as being a Buddhist? Isn't somewhat paradoxical? Thats perhaps why I love koans. It shatters our illusions with the absurdity of reality.
🙏
Excellent explanation about Buddha and personal identity!
Thanks Rodrigo, glad you found it useful!
I think it’s important to define what you mean by the “self” as it becomes confusing when you use it in different contexts. In Hinduism “Self” with a capital “S” Is defined a permanent, universal, infinite, consciousness, existence, bliss. Where the “self” with a small “s” can be defined as a permament part of the Universal Self (the individual soul) that has become identified with the temporary ego, mind and body. Sometimes the “self” with a small “s” is used to just describe the temporary ego, mind and body without any connection to the Higher Self. I think the key distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism is that Hinduism clearly defined that there is something that is permanent, eternal and exists as the Self (or Brahman).
Whereas Buddha seems to be silent on describing any concept as being permanent. Perhaps he was of the view that the self cannot be accurately describe in words so it’s best not to speak about it which may confuse people and they may develop an ego such as Brahmins (higher caste) at the time in Ancient India Which was a major problem in Hindi with it at the time. Instead he seems to prefer that his disciples directly experience the “Self” by the method of negation of “non self”. This method is also commonly used in Hinduism known as “Neti Neti” (the Self is not this, not this). This is the primary method in Buddhism where he taught to negate everything in the world is in impermanent and not self. However, he stopped short of saying that there is No Self as he knew and stated in a Sutra that this nihilistic philosophy is not accurate and leads to Heddonism and selfishness. He also preferred not to describe Self directly as I believe he felt the Self could not be described in words without it creating an ego and attachment. The Self can only be experienced in its entirety by each person subjectively and it is unexplainable in words. Any words to describe it reduces the infinite experience to a limited finite concept which is unproductive.
Personally I think I prefer the greater clarity that Hinduism provides in terms of what you are trying to achieve in terms of the Self rather than a Mystical concept of Self that is undefined. But I understand the limitations of defining it in words and perhaps the Philosophy of the Buddha. It would have been great if the Buddha could more clearly outlined his reasoning of not defining the Self and perhaps at least saying that there is a Self but it cannot be defined and only experienced would have provided a lot more clarity on this topic. Even so I am very grateful to the teachings of the border and Buddhism and the spiritual upliftment it has provided. Hail the Buddha. Hail Brahman 🙏🏽😇
Well the Buddha isn't saying that there is a mystical, undefined sort of self that exists and that we are trying to find. That's more like the Upaniṣadic idea that the Buddha was rejecting. Instead the Buddha is saying basically that we have a conventional, poorly defined notion of self that is useful to us in everyday life but that isn't liberative and that we need to leave aside to attain enlightenment.
@@DougsDharma where Buddha rejected Upanishadic idea of self sir ?
@@Antonio-uc7vnread the dhammapada or some early suttas
This is a great video, Doug!!
Thank you kindly!
Very important warning against today's identity politics
Thanks Alejandro. It can be, and also we have to work with the conventional selves we see in the world, which means owning up to the reality of the harm we do with systemic racism, sexism, and injustice. The Buddha was adamantly against the Brahminic caste system, for example.
Hello Doug ! Lately, I have been going through random articles/discussions on the net about Buddha's views on Self and Not Self. I found some very shocking webpages. One of them is about 'The True Self' revealed by Buddha in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutta. It's actually a lecture that Tony Page delivered in University of London in 2006. The Sutta basically says that just before dying, Buddha revealed that a True, Permanent, Eternal, Stable Self actually exists. He did so because some monks had ended up believing in the extreme view that there is no self. However, his response was not a Relativized one. He affirmed the existence of a Self in the Sutta. I read somewhere that he gave a Parable to explain why he had hidden it the whole time. He compared it to a Mother who does not let her child breastfeed by lying to him that there is some poison on her breasts. He says that he had kept the Self Doctrine a secret because he wanted his disciples to understand Non Attachment first. In fact, many scholars have pointed this out. So, what's going on here ? Did Mahayana distort Buddha's Teaching and introduce the idea of a Self ? Or do the Secular Buddhists today, like you and me, have no idea about this controversial topic ? Also, do the Pali Nikayas contain any verses where Buddha affirms the existence of an Eternal Self ? Please answer this huge confusion of mine. It's really bothering me, as it is about something fundamental in Buddhism ...
I'm not familiar with that lecture Dipayan but it's certainly the case that there were a lot of sutras written in the Buddha's name after his lifetime, that being one of them.
I was thinking the same. What about Suttas in the Pali Nikayas ? I can believe that the Mahayana stuff was added later, but what about the ones in the Nikayas ? Are there any such Suttas in the Nikayas too ? If yes, please share them with me, and, also explain how we know which ones were added and which ones go back to Buddha himself.
@@DipayanPyne94 None that state such a thing clearly. There are a few obscure sentences here and there that are interpreted that way, though they need not be. I did an earlier video on this: ruclips.net/video/175JTI5AXc4/видео.html
My understanding is that "no self" is different from "non-self". "no self" implies the rejection and denial of the concept of "self". "non-self" implies acceptance of the notion of self without any attachment. When Sakamuni Buddha addressed to His followers, he addressed them by their names. This appears that Buddha treated each of His followers as an individual with his/her own identity, thus each one of them is a unit of "self".
Buddhism pledge equality of all living beings. With "no self", there will not be individual followers and there will be no such thing as equality.
I understand that, Andrew. Buddha obviously didn't mean to say that we don't exist. We do. My point was about whether he affirmed a Soul or not. I have been reading the Pali Nikayas lately. It's becoming more and more clear that he didn't believe in any Soul. Why ? Dependent Origination and Impermanence !
Amazing channel!
Thanks for watching!
I'd like to think of life or death is a true self that manifests in the dharma law(or mystic law) through the simultaneity of cause and effect permeates in the rhythm or vibration of this beginningless universe. It's constantly changing but we have to live in the present to be true to ourselves. 😅 Thank you for your video, very helpful.
Thanks for watching Michael, be well. 🙏
Amazing description!!
Thanks Federico! 🙏
Thank you for the video! Your voice is so calming, and I sometimes find myself nodding off while listening. Would it be possible for you to occasionally shout to wake me up? 😅
😄😄
You are very skilled in transferring these teaching. This is the first time I’ve heard this explained where I’ve been able to grasp (oh no!haha) the meaning of this. I was having a bit of an existential crisis and obsessing over this teaching (I have OCD) that it is saying that I don’t actually exist in any way, where I realise that is not accurate.
I'm so glad the video helped! Thanks for your comment, Gavin. 🙏😊
In a way finding a way to lesson the suffering/discomfort from " obsessions" is what Buddhism is all about.
The point in buddhism is that the ego is a " construction" made up from the " real self". And that humans narcissism struggels to comprehend the fact that life and " reality" is in constant change. From the day we are born to the day we die. And that we suffer and obsess over the fear of the future. Obsess over the fear of illness and old age. When you meditate you get the " awareness" of the minds mechanics. And that i " shatters like a monkey" or as a " radio that plays in the background". This " shattering voice" in you mind is the ego. While on the other hand, the fact that you can observe this. Is the process of " enlightenment" that is there is awareness of how your mind is constantly in movement. And indeed is constantly " obsessing". Sitting meditation is the way of Zen. And the way to calm down " the shattering mind".
Instead of focusing on these things. Focus on your meditation practice. Make it as simple as you can ( 5-10 minutes is great). The important part is that you meditate, not that the meditation or your " knowledge" of buddhism is perfect.
Thanks for your compassionate reply much appreciated
🙏 Be well Alfred!
Thanks! This was helpful. I always thought that the ultimate goal was to get rid of the 'Illusion of Self', had also been meditating through that light using Waking Up. Maybe, I just misunderstood what Sam Harris talks about but this makes more sense to me.
Glad it helped samarth! 🙏
I was surprised to hear you say that we have free will. To author our own thoughts would be to think our thoughts before we think them. Where in the arising of contents in consciousness is an independent will?
Right, there is no independent will, this is part of the understanding of true free will. True free will must be dependently originated. See my video on free will here: ruclips.net/video/Hf1E91yKtvQ/видео.html
Any explanation of not-self must include and explanation of the six realms of existence and the 12 links of dependent origination.
Thanks for your thoughts Roberto. But, hmmm ... the Buddha's second sermon, The Characteristic of Nonself, discusses non-self without reference to the six realms of existence or the twelve links of dependent origination. suttacentral.net/sn22.59/en/bodhi
I just watched this, AFTER watching your videos about AI, and just after watching your video on the difference between Nirvana and Enlightenment. Juxtaposed that way, the presentation here of the problem with a doctrine of self is clinging to a self when the notion is always changing, and the presentation of whether an AI has such notions, one can sort of see why Nirvana would lead to Enlightenment. Nirvana, by definition, extinguishes the perception of self and one immediately finds, if one finds nothing else, that 'nothing happens'. The universe doesn't end, you don't die,....
Thanks yes, it's interesting!
Doug, I'd like to think that some of the rotten acts I committed as an adult had their origins in my very early childhood experiences of neglect, abandonment and abuse. Does that let me off the hook any? I'm doing a lot of good works these days but I still feel horrible about my past actions. Meditation has helped me to have some separation from my mental anguish and be temporarily compassionate towards myself. But regrets and shame return regularly to rob me of joy and pride.
I have a video on dealing with regret: ruclips.net/video/HvAf8fBCPR8/видео.html . Generally speaking though, we all make mistakes in our lives, due to our own specific causes and conditions. It's necessary to realize those, and regret can be a positive aspect of turning our minds towards being a better person in the future, but eventually it's best to let them go. The past is gone and cannot be changed. The future is just an idea in our heads. All we can do is right now.
All actions good or bad are ultimately caused by circumstances prior to our existence.
The thing that notices a choice or action cannot be the thing that produced it. Those almost trivial insights pull the rug under all shame, pride and hatred.
Very nice exposition of anattman. Thanks!
You're very welcome Andrés!
If there is no self and my five aggregates will also face death, so how can I experience my karmic reactions afterlife according to Buddhism,There are many explanations but I m facing difficulties to truly understand this...thanks in advance for spreading dharma❤️
Yes, you are talking about personal continuity. I have a number of videos on that topic you might want to check out first. 🙂
This is indeed one of the most difficult philosophical topics. It's really a revelation that our identification is what we cling to. But what is self identification? Do we need it and why? I think as long as we have the sense of individualism, we retain the awareness of self. Can one ever get rid of that sense of individualism? No matter how selfless we think we can be, we could still have the sense that each of us is an individual. No matter how well we can connect to others, both living and non living beings, there will always be a sense of individualism. I think non-self is basically being aware of the notion of self yet detached from such notion. However, does this eliminate the sense of individualism and "self identification"? Or is it unnecessary to eliminate such notion from our consciousness to be enlightened?
Yes Andrew, well we will always think of ourselves as individuals in some sense I expect. The issue may be more of an emotional attachment to that individuality, a sense of belonging to it, that isn't warranted.
Ātman is a Sanskrit word that refers to the Self or self-existent essence of individuals, as distinct from ego, mind and embodied existence. The term is often translated as soul, but is better translated as "Self," as it solely refers to pure consciousness or witness-consciousness, beyond identification with phenomena.
I think the Buddha would say there were no self (separate) apart from causes & conditions; that is it could not be a consciousness ONLY apart from causes & conditions (matter (purusa-prakriti)) as in Samkhya or Vedanta.
Thank you - something to chew on for a while!
You’re very welcome Norman. Yes, it needs a lifetime of chewing! 😄
Thank you.
Namo buddhaya!
You're very welcome Dihini!
Thank you!
A great teaching again, Doug. The reference to Derek Parfett I found very helpful. You briefly mentioned the importance of the idea of 'self' within the karmic flows of ownership of action to result. It struck me that the whole 8-fold path becomes problematic without the idea of volition: the idea that 'I' will be responsible for my own right intention, speech, etc.?
How do you mean "problematic"? Certainly volition is necessary for practice, but there needn't be an "I" (or at least a permanent, unchanging "I") for there to be volition. Volition simply arises in an ever-changing series of mental and physical states.
Thanks. That is a very useful reply and adds some clarity. It perhaps equally highlights the complexity of owning/disowning, even for an impermanent moment, such volition for practice. Or perhaps, as you suggested in your teaching, this duality is unresolvable and as Nagarjuna seems to imply, perhaps a false duality?
Great video! Thank you.
You're very welcome!
So my question is this, if the self is a fleeting transitional thing and all our joys and sorrows impermanent then how do we treat our moments of joy? Is the Buddha ultimately advocating indifference?
Not indifference, but nonattachment. That is, it's not that we don't care, it's that we stop identifying ourselves with the joy and craving the joy. I have an earlier video that might help illustrate the point: ruclips.net/video/vHaT4f4Ttq4/видео.html
@@DougsDharma was looking for this thank you. It’s hard to tell the difference imo but hopefully your video will help. Great work on these btw I’m sure they are helping a lot of people.
@@DougsDharma
In a joyful moment you literally are joy though. There simply is nothing besides the joy. When you're contemplating the joy a second later, you're awareness of joy.
please read "abhidhrmaya" and do "vipassana" meditation then you will find there is no-soul (self). this is a really deep concept. if we have a soul why can't we control of our body is being sick,not feeling sad or being always happy
Exactly so Indi. This is what the Buddha discussed in his second sermon.🙂
I have seen the danger of anatta.Some years ago I practised anatta so much that I totally ignored kamma which made me sufferred.So I have decided not to think about anatta.I use the term life instead of anatta.When I use the term life,there is no sense of ego but there is a urge of maintaining kamma
Yes it's a subtle balance. We need to keep in mind a healthy idea of self so that we strive skillfully and not unskillfully.
Causation is enough. No self entity is responsible. Rather than proffer further detailed explanation, Buddha renders this imponderable, with no end to examination. Cf analogy where Buddah looks back 91 expansions and contractions of the universe without seeing a first cause. For a first cause would indicate a self. Another analogy he gave was that the celestial realms include one of creator gods, who awakened at the onset of this world system and deemed themselves responsible for its creation. Analogies come close to views, so I'll not try to be attached to this argument.
very good explanation. you've gained a subscriber 😊
Awesome, thank you! 🙏
I get the idea of 'no permanent self', this chimes with the modern scientific view-as you say, 'a causally connected stream'. In a sense, as Bethany Hughes puts it in her BBC documentary on Buddha, before birth we were always 'coming into being'. After death, well, rebirth? If this were the case, would we just join some other person's (or creature's) 'causally connected stream'? This is always the problem with any philosophy that has a supernatural element, it breaks down when you apply logic. Notwithstanding this, your secular approach, 'do unto others what you would have them do unto you' appeals to me, as an atheist, as do some of Buddha's ideas or indeed Jesus's teachings!
Yes there are nuggets of wisdom in so many early teachings.
Great! Thanx! Much more to say, for sure... :) So how do we actually work with non-self?
Well that's a huge question! The non-self practice leads us into a general approach of non-attachment. I have a playlist on that: ruclips.net/p/PL0akoU_OszRiCb2Jxe488IqJQvT8uARjm
Buddha was a great person.
I thoroughly appreciated this, because after reading the sutta on self, it sounded like the Buddhist philosophy of non-self was a problem, not of non-existence of a self so to speak, but of misidentification of self with creation. But... if that's the case, does that mean that the unborn, the uncreated, the unmanifest is... actual self? Which wouldn't be a personal, individual self, whose false 'existence' is the ego manufactured out of greed, anger, and delusion, but one of selflessness, as the uncreated has no self...
Well ‘the uncreated’ isn’t a thing; it’s the absence of greed, hatred, and delusion. It also isn’t the actual self. There is no ‘actual self’, there are only concepts of a self that can sometimes be helpful and other times not.
The way I see it is it all comes down to dependent origination. There cannot be an essence of being or a primal or quintessential self because the self is, like everything else, dependently originated. The self originates from the five aggregates, and it changes, therefore one cannot point to a perfect definition of what the self or any instance of a self (any person) is. If you try to for example make a virtual copy of someone through science fiction computer programming, you will need to make it more and more accurate because it will always be an approximation to the real person, it would always be imperfect as a representation because the person will change or because the tool will be insufficient, so the precision to make this copy perfect would maybe be so large that it might fool a person, but not another hyper intelligent machine. In order to actually fully represent a person you would zoom into infinity like the shoreline paradox in mathematics (a real life example of fractal geometry in the physical world).
And so when we think of someone else or even when we think of ourselves or a self, we are doing the same thing the hypothetical ai is doing. If we saw reality as it is, it would be nonsensical because objects, forms, concepts, ideas and even words are all made up ways to represent and understand the world. When you say I it is an oversimplification of an infinite reality made finite enough to fit our brain.
This doesn’t mean that the things that happen are unimportant, or that we don’t exist in the sense that it’s all an illusion and therefore nothing matters (literal nihilism) but it means we should notice the imperfection of our psychic experience.
A very pragmatic example is when practicing martial arts: in judo or bjj sometimes a person feels like they have control over you, their body feels heavy, unchanging, unmovable, but as soon as you change the angles and forces at play suddenly you can make them fly away effortlessly. This person was never permanent in their control, it was not a rigid and unmovable object, it was always as frail as you felt when under its weight.
Another pragmatic example is aversion and desire: when we feel something unpleasant like say you look at a bug. There is a notion of a “bugness” that makes you feel aversion. But if you detach from this rigid conceptual idea of the “faculty of bugness” in a spider, and see it as an aggregate of forms, some sort of conciousness, and not as an idealistic platonic entity with essence… suddenly it’s way easier to observe it without feeling an innate repulsion. The same thing happens with pain or discomfort.
So far in my journey, non self and void seem to be complex fractalic concepts more than literal sentences about our concious experience claiming that things are not real, as if our concious experience was reality. And I can’t quite put it into words but in a sense it’s as if to say reality itself is whole permanent and complete while our approximations and sensations as individual egos are what makes us experience dukkha: the only thing that is not void is voidness itself, thingness itself, existence, reality, because everything that exists besides it arises from it, and therefore is not essential on its own merit: nirvana is thus in metaphysical sense letting go of self-ness and realizing the self is void in a level so deep that it’s not just intellectual, but that is as natural as breathing
Thanks for your thoughts!
It sounds like the Buddha was confused about self😊😊
He was not
So how can we relate personality to this? Because I see how that is something we use to identify with- “I am funny, I am kind, I am shy/quite etc. those all seem to be how we try to identify our selves. I guess what I’m asking is how can we have these “personality” traits and qualities without over identifying with them and using them to define the self, while still allowing ourselves to be “funny, kind, shy, quite” etc.
It's kind of like a dance Renee, there's no simple answer. You may be funny, kind, shy, etc. right now, but later different. So sit with it, and see what arises for you.
You are two steps removed here.
The you that notices that you are funny is not funny.
There's an animal there that is has behavior traits. But you as in whatever experiences this sentence are not that animal, just like you aren't a skeleton, muscle, stomach etc. The thoughts that animals has just appear to you.
That's step one. Step two is that the experience doesn't need an experiencer.
Once you learn to control your mind rather than let your mind control you, the difference between the two become clear.
That can be true J Norfleet, but also sometimes the notion of “control” can get in the way of seeing non-self. It depends how it’s held.
@@DougsDharma, very true, given intent, control is probably the wrong word to use. Language is a barrier, and can understand why Buddha's no-answer was the best answer within itself :)
I recognize a common theme of "Religion" and "Philosophy" and that is the editing of concepts and perceptions that exclude and muddle the motor-force of human existence which is one's "SELF" AKA "SOUL", non-self is the attempt to nullify precisely it. The manipulators of the written word HAD to have learned about the TRUE SOURCE of the SOUL from their time in "EGYPT" that was the birth of "MONOTHEISM", (that the Israelites appropriated it as their own accomplishment is another matter), hence the stubborn dedication to erase the Egyptian's contributions to the field of "KNOWLEDGE" and "MYSTIC" matters. The basis for the disruptions of such endeavor is part of the scheme to purge ALL notions, knowledge and "Analytical" minds away from the DIVINE SOURCE OF LIFE that is in ALL HIS CREATION, that WITHIN HIS "Rational" Creatures was labeled as "SOUL", that the ancient "Nefarious force" is relentless to obscure and keep hidden. The "FORBIDDEN FRUIT" is nothing more than TRUTH, hence the discussion and shuffling of "ABSOLUTE TRUTH" = GOD = SOUL = ALLKNOWING = ETERNAL. The manipulations of the TEACHINGS of the "PROPHETS", = "MANIFESTATIONS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT / GHOST", of old, have ALL been intercepted and manipulated by that nefarious force known by various names/adjectives "SATAN" to keep mankind GODLESS to reach to the outcome that HUMANITY is living through TODAY. The narrations of the begginings of the wars, lootings and massacres, genocides and inhumane atrocities that are commonplace today are outlined in the Old Testament, the "BAHGAVAD GITA" narrates about wars and bickerings as well and the adherents of the Holy Koran pray "faithfully" daily, but are quick to commit heartless killings and as hardheadedas ever. Not least their killing of BAHA'I'S (THE FULFILLMENT OF ALL THE HOLY SCRIPTURES) since it's beginnings in 1844 -1863. All to say, Satan's manipulations since ancient times are now well established lies and voluntary handsomely rewarded ignorance, and the weak minded gullibles take it all in and call theirselves "knowledgeable" "Philosophers", "Scholars", "Theologist" and "Gurus", while the TRUE MYSTICS need to stay silent and be as serviceable as their "HIGHER BEING" was "INCARNATED" for and to guide those to come.
When you say “self” are you speaking of the ego or true self. The ego self cannot comprehend no-self, the ego is our survival mechanism..but the true self… how do we recognize that!
Hi Doug, thanks. You might be interested in an article called “Could David Hume Have Known about Buddhism? Charles Francois Dolu, the Royal College of La Flèche, and the Global Jesuit Intellectual Network”
by Alison Gopnik
In “Hume Studies” journal
Makes a pretty good case that he was quite influenced by it
Yes I think I've read of some of the speculations surrounding this. While it's certainly possible, I'm still pretty dubious.
Doug, loved the explanation!
You might want to check the thought of SILO (Silo.net). Particularly his book "The inner look" and his first public talk: "The healing of suffering."
Great, thanks Ivan!
Yes, I am not sure about no self, but I am very confident there’s no permanent self. I think there is an ideal self we conjure up when we fell safe and secure and that is the self we cling to and think we are. However, as emotional states change the self changes. We are not the same person under the influences of lust, greed, fear, anger, ego saturation; we change and sometimes act against this ideal self we think we are which causes suffering. If we acknowledge we are, legion, the many selves and work on enlightening each self maybe we could reach nirvana with an integration of an acceptable whole self. I am retired now and as I look back over the many selves, I see I have no good self.
Pardon me if i'm wrong, I study buddhism for almost 2 years now, so I'm fairly new to this.
To my understanding the Self doesn't exist in a sense of one who is doing things (the thinking, the seeing, etc), there would be only a sort of Stream behind things, almost like a river.
Yes this is the way it’s often explained nowadays. The Buddha didn’t really talk about the self as a stream since he really didn’t want to reify it in any concrete way, though as I say in the video he did talk about the self in a more everyday or “conventional” sense all the time. The self as “doer” is only one kind of self we can consider, I talk about several more in this video: ruclips.net/video/taz55McTJ8E/видео.html
@@DougsDharma Thanks for the answer.