Explanations about anatta are often very theoretical. I appreciate the practicality of Bhante's explanation here, as well as his emphasis on gradual understanding.
Appreciate the clarification on Anatta. First time learning that it is a gradual progress rather than a big bang instantaneous kind of realization. Also, the analogy of roller-coaster on anger and mindfulness creating a gap for us to choose a response is very relatable.
@@Maggasekha Thank you so much for shared! And, i have questions... Do you read Pali? Do you know how many times Sakamune quoted the ADJECTIVE Anatta in the Nikayas, i mean, did you read the Pali Canon? Do you know what Brahmayama is? You turned an ADJECTIVE into a proper NOUN because of your historical ignorance... If X is not A, If X is not B, If X is not C: so I can't say that X doesn't exist. You are not good in logic yet, sorry. Atta’sarana anan’n’asarana.------"Soul as a refuge with none other as refuge” DN 2.100 “Atta’ ca me so saranam gati ca” --------“The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto” Jatakapali 1441 Akkhakandam "Soul the refuge (Saran.am.attano)" DN 2.120 Jataka-2 #1341 “tattha atta’ va sarathi” ------“the Soul is Charioteer” The Buddhist term Anatman (Sanskrit), or Anatta (Pali) is an adjective in sutra used to refer to the nature of phenomena as being devoid of the Soul, that being the ontological and uncompounded subjective Self (atman) which is the “light (dipam), and only refuge” [DN 2.100]. Of the 662 occurrences of the term Anatta in the Nikayas, its usage is restricted to referring to 22 nouns (forms, feelings, perception, experiences, consciousness, the eye, eye-consciousness, desires, mentation, mental formations, ear, nose, tongue, body, lusts, things unreal, etc.), all phenomenal, as being Selfless (anatta). Contrary to countless many popular (=profane, or = consensus, from which the truth can ‘never be gathered’) books (as Buddhologist C.A.F. Davids has deemed them ‘miserable little books’) written outside the scope of Buddhist doctrine, there is no “Doctrine of anatta/anatman” mentioned anywhere in the sutras, rather anatta is used only to refer to impermanent things/phenomena as other than the Soul, to be anatta, or Self-less (an-atta). Specifically in sutra, anatta is used to describe the temporal and unreal (metaphysically so) nature of any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal, and temporal things, from macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter as pertains the physical body, the cosmos at large, including any and all mental machinations which are of the nature of arising and passing. Anatta in sutra is synonymous and interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanent); all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. Such as: “All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta.” It should be further noted that, in doctrine, that the only noun which is branded permanent (nicca), is obviously and logically so, the noun attan [Skt. Atman], such as passage (SN 1.169). What has Buddhism to say of the Self? "That's not my Self" (na me so atta); this, and the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta) predicated of the world and all "things" (sabbe dhamma anatta); Identical with the Brahmanical "of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul", (anatma hi martyah [SB., II. 2. 2. 3]). [KN J-1441] “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”. For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but what it is not. There is never and nowhere in sutra, a ‘doctrine of no-Soul’, but a doctrine of what the Soul is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.). It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical “self” in the very meaning of “my-self” (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta, i.e. Bob, Sue, Larry etc.), one might say in accordance with the command ‘denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what modern and highly unenlightened writers mean to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say and do in fact say, is that the Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata), Supreme-Self (mahatta’), uncaused (samskrta), undying (amara) and eternal (nicca) of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta’, “This/these are not my Soul” (na me so atta’= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama), a statement to which the words of Sankhara are peculiarly apposite, “Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real” [Br. Sutra III.2.22]; since it was not for the Buddha, but for the nihilist (natthika), to deny the Soul. For, [SN 3.82] “yad anatta….na me so atta, “what is anatta…(means) that is not my Atman”; the extremely descriptive illumination of all thing which are Selfless (anattati) would be both meaningless and a waste of much time for Gotama were (as the foolish commentators espousing Buddhism’s denial of the atman) to clarify and simplify his sermons by outright declaring ‘followers, there is no atman!’, however no such passage exists. The Pali for said passage would be: ‘bhikkhave, natthattati!’; and most certainly such a passage would prove the holy grail and boon for the Theravadin nihilists (materialists) who have ‘protesteth too much’ that Buddhism is one in which the atman is rejected, but to no avail or help to their untenable views and position by the teachings themselves. Outside of going into the doctrines of later schisms of Buddhism, such as Sarvastivada, Theravada, Vajrayana, Madhyamika, and lastly Zen, the oldest existing texts (Nikayas) of Buddhism which predate all these later schools of Buddhism [The Sanchi and Bharut inscriptions (aka the Pillar edicts) unquestionably dated to the middle of the second century B.C.E. push the composition of the 5 Nikayas back to a earlier date by mentioning the word “pañcanekayika” (Five Nikyas), thereby placing the Nikayas as put together (no later than) at a period about half way between the death of the Buddha and the accession of Asoka (before 265 B.C.), as such the 5 Nikayas, the earliest existing texts of Buddhism, must have been well known and well established far earlier than generally perceived. Finally proving the majority of the five Nikayas could not have been composed any later than the very earliest portion of the third century B.C.E.], anatta is never used pejoratively in any sense in the Nikayas by Gotama the Buddha, who himself has said: [MN 1.140] “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering (that being avijja, or nescience/agnosis), and its ending (avijja).” Further investigation into negative theology is the reference by which one should be directed as to a further understanding of this 'negative' methodology which the term anatta illuminates. It should be noted with great importance that the founder of Advaita Vedanta, Samkara used the term anatman lavishly in the exact same manner as does Buddhism, however in all of time since his passing, none have accused Samkara of espousing a denial of the Atman. Such as: “Atma-anatma vivekah kartavyo bandha nuktaye”“The wiseman should discriminate between the Atman and the non-Atman (anatman) in order to be liberated.” [Vivekacudamani of Samkara v. 152], “Anatman cintanam tyaktva kasmalam duhkah karanam, vintayatmanam ananda rupam yan-mukti karanam.””Give up all that is non-Atman (anatman), which is the cause of all misery, think only of the Atman, which is blissful and the locus of all liberation.” [Vivekacudamani of Samkara v. 379], “Every qualifying characteristic is, as the non-Atman (anatman), comparable to the empty hand.” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 6.2], “the intellect, its modifications, and objects are the non-Atman (anatman).” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 14.9], “The gain of the non-Atman (anatman) is no gain at all. Therefore one should give up the notion that one is the non-Atman (anatman).” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 14.44]. In none of the Buddhist suttas is there support for "there is no-atman" theories of anatta . The message is simply to cease regarding the very khandhas in those terms by which the notion of atman has, itself, been so easily misconstrued. As has been shown, detaching oneself from the phenomenal desire for the psycho-physical existence was also a central part of Samkara’s strategy. There is, hence, nothing in the suttas that Samkara, the chief proponent of Advaita Vedanta, would have disagreed with.
When someone "thinks" they are thought free they are having a thought. That thought is saying "I am thought free" and that is thinking. And that is exactly where the investigation should take "you". Simply see that. The mind can't get you there. It's a process. "You: is the process. This is very subtle stuff
I prefer Rupert Spira’s how to regarding difficult emotions. Either focus on the “I“ as in “I am experiencing anger” (vedantic approach), or bring the anger as close as possible to the sense of self, until it becomes indistinguishable (tantric approach).
"you" have a choice, so there is a "self", you are just learning a skill to not give a shit...which is a skill that comes naturally to few people in our society
Attention ! Buddha never said there is no such thing as a soul, be careful. Anatta is a teaching technique to discern the self deception of our identification with what we think we are. It is a subtle insight.
A question. It seems to me that there are two ways that something can be unreal. On the one hand, a thing might be unreal in the way all phenomena are unreal, as names we give to fleeting occurances. So in that way, you might say that even the most mundane things, lika horses, are ultimately unreal, as they are constantly changing. On the other hand, there are things that are unreal even as phenomena, for instance a unicorn. It's not that the unicorn is in constant flux and therefore unreal; there's simply no phenomenon that corresponds to the word. So I wonder, is the self unreal in the sense that a horse is ultimately unreal, or is it unreal in the sense that a unicorn is unreal, in that there is no such phenomenon at all?
Buddhism's Anatta and Hinduism's Atman are both right. If you look in Egoistic view of the soul 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 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.
The conventional perception of the self is a delusion, yet self preservation is the strongest instinct in all living beings. What an interesting paradox. Perhaps this is the reason "no self" is so difficult to understand. Could you sacrifice your own existence for the common good if it was necessary? I would very much enjoy hearing you speak about this some time. Thanks for sharing your wisdom.
What continues after death is the process of dependent origination itself. Buddhism doesn’t see a discrete ‘self’, it sees causal relationships between various phenomena, and these give rise to ‘being’ ‘birth’ and ‘death’. After death, the cycle repeats ad infinitum as long as there is ignorance of the true nature of things, as this ignorance causes craving and clinging which causes rebirth. The nature of this rebirth is conditioned by the habitual tendencies and kamma of the being as it dies. So what continues on isn’t anything especially ‘personal’, its more like an echo of the past. An enlightened being recognises that this impersonal ‘echo’ is how the present moment is unfolding as well, so rebirth isn’t fundamentally different to moment to moment existence right here and now.
The Atman. 😂 Modern Day Buddhist have never read it themselves . Just listen to their guru who has no clue of what they are talking about . I don’t care if it sound egotistical or not . Siddhartha never said no soul. He means no self not Self. The lower self is what he’s referring to on a metaphysical level
@@SithSolomon he never talks about higher or lower self. he never says there is a soul. this is something that you should seriously think about, because if the answer was 'there is actually a soul' he would have said as much, but he did not. But he also did not say there is not a soul. Meditate on this question.
@@nathanduncan6919 I have for years. This is why I’m going to enlighten you on the topic. Religion or “Group Think” is nothing by secularized Metaphysics. In any philosophical studies in history there has always been “2” Selfs. There has always been a higher and a Lower. Now I will let you answer this for yourself. “What is being liberated”, When the consciousness is going what is transmigrating. What is the 9th consciousness in so called Buddhism . Sound a lot like what?
@@nathanduncan6919 Anatta Meant : Not-Soul, it did not mean No-Soul. It’s a Negative connotation of what it is not. Matter of fact even the name Buddhism isn’t technically correct . Furthermore. Most modern Buddhist are undercover Nihilists and Atomist. They have taken a great teaching and Bastardized it to the point that it is damn near no where near the actual teaching at times. Honestly . The Anatta doctrine isn’t even a doctrine or factual . From Siddhartha . Not your guru . Not your mentor . Not your belief of what it is. IF YOU HAVE NO SOUL THEN WHAT IS TRANSMIGRATING. IF THERE IS NO SUBJECT WHO IS AWARE OF THE OBJECT. My goodness. The human race is doomed if this is the highest level of consciousness that we have reached so far
Using the English word 'soul' for atman is problematic on a lot of levels. For one, the term 'soul' is a lot more vague and borderline nebulous than what an atman is supposed to be. For example, ask someone if their 'soul' can change it's mind about something, or if it could forget anything. You'd either get an "I don't know", or "why wouldn't it?". Therefore, conflating what a westerner would call his 'soul' with the dharmic atman, creates more problems than it's worth.
Well if you look in the Pali English dictionary for anatta, soulless is a valid English definition for the word. I also think it fits best because the Buddha never answered if there was or was not a self. He denied anything nicca, permanent/stable. The typical western understanding of a soul is a permanent everlasting thing that lives forever, this goes directly against anicca, so I find soul actually works well on many levels for westerners. I admit when I first head monastics use the word no/not-soul, I too didn't like it, but after my growth in understanding of anatta I think it is quite valid and perhaps even the best way to explain anatta.
@@Maggasekha He didn't answer on one occasion and did on another. Just like the question about 'God' existing. And this is a case of getting the English word 'soul' wrong. Long has atman been translated as 'soul' by non-native speakers of English, but this was a mistake from the beginning. These CAN be the same thing, but 'soul' is much more vague and nebulous a word than atman. You could even, if you are of a skeptical persuasion, call your own mind, volitions, and memories, a 'soul' if you were also of a romantical disposition. And those things exist. The fact that they are always changing does not conflict with the definition of a 'soul'.
@@MaggasekhaNo in pali it means NO SELF. Nothing about the soul. I’m sorry to tell you this . But this is nihilism at its finest and is not what Siddhartha Taught. You are leading people to hell with this nonsensical grammatical error
You cannot possess soul. I have.. I is ego. There is no truth is self. Selflessness is humility is acknowledgment of truth. To think “I” is to place your entire consciousness on your self
In a world gone blind, I beat the drum of the deathless - Buddha The deathless is the Atman And There is, monks, an unborn[1] - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated. If there were not that unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born - become - made - fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, escape from the born - become - made - fabricated is discerned.[2] - Buddha And again, the Atman. The Buddha didn't teach there is no Atman. He taught the mind and the body aren't the Atman. The no self teachings are about the mind and body, not the Atman/Buddha nature/Primordial citta/Deathless/ etc etc. No Atman = after you become an Arahant, and pass away, you destroy yourself. If there's no Atman, what happens to you after you escape from rebirth? You just go out of existence. This is self destruction. Nihilism. The Buddha didn't teach that. The Buddhas Atman is alive right now. He came to visit Ajahn Mun after Ajahn Mun became an Arahant. Buddhism isn't nihilism.
Thank you so much for shared! And, i have questions... Do you read Pali? Do you know how many times Sakamune quoted the ADJECTIVE Anatta in the Nikayas, i mean, did you read the Pali Canon? Do you know what Brahmayama is? You turned an ADJECTIVE into a proper NOUN because of your historical ignorance... If X is not A, If X is not B, If X is not C: so I can't say that X doesn't exist. You are not good in logic yet, sorry. Atta’sarana anan’n’asarana.------"Soul as a refuge with none other as refuge” DN 2.100 “Atta’ ca me so saranam gati ca” --------“The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto” Jatakapali 1441 Akkhakandam "Soul the refuge (Saran.am.attano)" DN 2.120 Jataka-2 #1341 “tattha atta’ va sarathi” ------“the Soul is Charioteer” The Buddhist term Anatman (Sanskrit), or Anatta (Pali) is an adjective in sutra used to refer to the nature of phenomena as being devoid of the Soul, that being the ontological and uncompounded subjective Self (atman) which is the “light (dipam), and only refuge” [DN 2.100]. Of the 662 occurrences of the term Anatta in the Nikayas, its usage is restricted to referring to 22 nouns (forms, feelings, perception, experiences, consciousness, the eye, eye-consciousness, desires, mentation, mental formations, ear, nose, tongue, body, lusts, things unreal, etc.), all phenomenal, as being Selfless (anatta). Contrary to countless many popular (=profane, or = consensus, from which the truth can ‘never be gathered’) books (as Buddhologist C.A.F. Davids has deemed them ‘miserable little books’) written outside the scope of Buddhist doctrine, there is no “Doctrine of anatta/anatman” mentioned anywhere in the sutras, rather anatta is used only to refer to impermanent things/phenomena as other than the Soul, to be anatta, or Self-less (an-atta). Specifically in sutra, anatta is used to describe the temporal and unreal (metaphysically so) nature of any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal, and temporal things, from macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter as pertains the physical body, the cosmos at large, including any and all mental machinations which are of the nature of arising and passing. Anatta in sutra is synonymous and interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanent); all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. Such as: “All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta.” It should be further noted that, in doctrine, that the only noun which is branded permanent (nicca), is obviously and logically so, the noun attan [Skt. Atman], such as passage (SN 1.169). What has Buddhism to say of the Self? "That's not my Self" (na me so atta); this, and the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta) predicated of the world and all "things" (sabbe dhamma anatta); Identical with the Brahmanical "of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul", (anatma hi martyah [SB., II. 2. 2. 3]). [KN J-1441] “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”. For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but what it is not. There is never and nowhere in sutra, a ‘doctrine of no-Soul’, but a doctrine of what the Soul is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.). It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical “self” in the very meaning of “my-self” (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta, i.e. Bob, Sue, Larry etc.), one might say in accordance with the command ‘denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what modern and highly unenlightened writers mean to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say and do in fact say, is that the Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata), Supreme-Self (mahatta’), uncaused (samskrta), undying (amara) and eternal (nicca) of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta’, “This/these are not my Soul” (na me so atta’= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama), a statement to which the words of Sankhara are peculiarly apposite, “Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real” [Br. Sutra III.2.22]; since it was not for the Buddha, but for the nihilist (natthika), to deny the Soul. For, [SN 3.82] “yad anatta….na me so atta, “what is anatta…(means) that is not my Atman”; the extremely descriptive illumination of all thing which are Selfless (anattati) would be both meaningless and a waste of much time for Gotama were (as the foolish commentators espousing Buddhism’s denial of the atman) to clarify and simplify his sermons by outright declaring ‘followers, there is no atman!’, however no such passage exists. The Pali for said passage would be: ‘bhikkhave, natthattati!’; and most certainly such a passage would prove the holy grail and boon for the Theravadin nihilists (materialists) who have ‘protesteth too much’ that Buddhism is one in which the atman is rejected, but to no avail or help to their untenable views and position by the teachings themselves. Outside of going into the doctrines of later schisms of Buddhism, such as Sarvastivada, Theravada, Vajrayana, Madhyamika, and lastly Zen, the oldest existing texts (Nikayas) of Buddhism which predate all these later schools of Buddhism [The Sanchi and Bharut inscriptions (aka the Pillar edicts) unquestionably dated to the middle of the second century B.C.E. push the composition of the 5 Nikayas back to a earlier date by mentioning the word “pañcanekayika” (Five Nikyas), thereby placing the Nikayas as put together (no later than) at a period about half way between the death of the Buddha and the accession of Asoka (before 265 B.C.), as such the 5 Nikayas, the earliest existing texts of Buddhism, must have been well known and well established far earlier than generally perceived. Finally proving the majority of the five Nikayas could not have been composed any later than the very earliest portion of the third century B.C.E.], anatta is never used pejoratively in any sense in the Nikayas by Gotama the Buddha, who himself has said: [MN 1.140] “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering (that being avijja, or nescience/agnosis), and its ending (avijja).” Further investigation into negative theology is the reference by which one should be directed as to a further understanding of this 'negative' methodology which the term anatta illuminates. It should be noted with great importance that the founder of Advaita Vedanta, Samkara used the term anatman lavishly in the exact same manner as does Buddhism, however in all of time since his passing, none have accused Samkara of espousing a denial of the Atman. Such as: “Atma-anatma vivekah kartavyo bandha nuktaye”“The wiseman should discriminate between the Atman and the non-Atman (anatman) in order to be liberated.” [Vivekacudamani of Samkara v. 152], “Anatman cintanam tyaktva kasmalam duhkah karanam, vintayatmanam ananda rupam yan-mukti karanam.””Give up all that is non-Atman (anatman), which is the cause of all misery, think only of the Atman, which is blissful and the locus of all liberation.” [Vivekacudamani of Samkara v. 379], “Every qualifying characteristic is, as the non-Atman (anatman), comparable to the empty hand.” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 6.2], “the intellect, its modifications, and objects are the non-Atman (anatman).” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 14.9], “The gain of the non-Atman (anatman) is no gain at all. Therefore one should give up the notion that one is the non-Atman (anatman).” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 14.44]. In none of the Buddhist suttas is there support for "there is no-atman" theories of anatta . The message is simply to cease regarding the very khandhas in those terms by which the notion of atman has, itself, been so easily misconstrued. As has been shown, detaching oneself from the phenomenal desire for the psycho-physical existence was also a central part of Samkara’s strategy. There is, hence, nothing in the suttas that Samkara, the chief proponent of Advaita Vedanta, would have disagreed with.
Atman is not a jiva-soul. Atman is impersonal so it is not a unique entity of a jiva. There is one Atman, no your or my Atman separate. It is The Self, not a self. Actions, bodies doesn’t touch Atman. Consciousness appears on Atman but Atman is untouched by it. It is oneness and it is realized when separateness disappears. Please don’t misinterpret. When people who aren’t realized try to preach others instead of focusing on their realization, all these issues happen leading to more separateness. More separateness, not Atman or Anatma. May we make our separateness disappear forever.
Certainly there is the false understanding of the mind thinking it is a self, which is illusion, and causes quite a bit of stress and narrow living, that needn't be. Wouldn't that be sufficient enough of an idea of liberation? Not sure if your question was rhetorical or not, but in the off chance you are sincerely asking, this is the answer I have for you =) Peace and love.
I don't know, but I think that liberation is realising there is nothing/no one to liberate. Sounds good. Then you carry on with life knowing the self was just a concept.
@@alanwhitehead9756 Ight.....but are you making the statement that Souls are “unreal”. Or are you just using the idea of No Soul as a kind of mental trick to help you in liberation. Cause liberation is not mentally saying or believing there is no soul either...you actually have to use neti neti on a spiritual level like you literally become a non passionate observer of reality No Soul means no existence how can you exist without a soul....I don’t understand
@@TheLastOutlaw-KTS Hey there! The thing that is being liberated has not container that could possibly be identified. The liberation itself is the idea of a container. But once you're living in a space of no-container (no soul?), the source of awareness seems to be stemming from an infinite portal into deep silence, or something like that. It's hard to describe with words to be honest but I feel it all the time. I think that's what "no soul" means, is just an additional reminder to not latch onto containers, even after the first liberation of realizing the body/mind aren't your containers. Does that clear it up at all? My thoughts are that it's a semantic thing, but we're in a space where words can easily get in the way since we're talking about concepts that have no container or substance to them, as if the experience was coming from dark matter or anti-matter or something of that suchness.
So those in the LGBTQIA communities are heavy in the self and are inevitably suffering deeply? How then are there gay Buddhists? They have not realized anatta?
Modern Buddhist have no idea that THIS DOES NOT MEAN NO SOUL. Buddhism means Brahmayana The path to the absolute . It’s kind of degrading to Siddhartha to preach this nonsense. Anatta is a Via-Negativa meaning saying everything the soul is not. It’s the Same as Advaita Vedanta . Y’all are saying the same thing in 2 different ways
You are absolutely correct. Ken Wheeler is the guy who translated ancient pali and has proved this to be true. Buddhism has strayed far from its original teachings.
@@MarkErrington Indeed. Another aspect of Buddhism that has not been proclaimed properly is the subject of the three truths. No one wants to talk about it. Ku-Spiritual/Mental (Unseen)/Absolute Ke-Physical/ Material (Seen)/Relative Chu-Middle Way (Seen & Unseen) The Spiritual is the Physical. The Unseen came before the Seen. Then back to the Unseen. The Soul is Transmigrating . That’s what truly holds this seen and unseen aspect of reality together.
No. The Buddha never said all is impermanent. Yes he said everything (every THING) is impermanent, but not all. The Deathless is eternal. When the mind sees all perceiveable or conceivable or senses as dukkha, impermanent, conditioned, and annatta, and the mind lets go... then the eternal Deathless is revealed. Please pass to the speaker. But I did love his response otherwise for whatever thats worth.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Explanations about anatta are often very theoretical. I appreciate the practicality of Bhante's explanation here, as well as his emphasis on gradual understanding.
Phenomenal explanation Bhante!! 🙏 I just randomly stumbled upon this video and it’s something I struggle with. You explained it so well.
Appreciate the clarification on Anatta. First time learning that it is a gradual progress rather than a big bang instantaneous kind of realization.
Also, the analogy of roller-coaster on anger and mindfulness creating a gap for us to choose a response is very relatable.
glad to hear it was of some benefit to you my friend.
This is a good one!!
🙏 You helped realise a lot with this explanation. Thank you! 🙏
I'm glad to of helped, practice well my friend :)
Thank you for this. I was struggling grasping this concept earlier today.
It was very straightforward and easy-to-understand Dhamma explanation about anatta . Sadhu sadhu sadhu
thank you my friend, practice well :)
@@Maggasekha Thank you so much for shared! And, i have questions... Do you read Pali? Do you know how many times Sakamune quoted the ADJECTIVE Anatta in the Nikayas, i mean, did you read the Pali Canon? Do you know what Brahmayama is? You turned an ADJECTIVE into a proper NOUN because of your historical ignorance... If X is not A, If X is not B, If X is not C: so I can't say that X doesn't exist. You are not good in logic yet, sorry.
Atta’sarana anan’n’asarana.------"Soul as a refuge with none other as refuge” DN 2.100
“Atta’ ca me so saranam gati ca” --------“The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto” Jatakapali 1441 Akkhakandam
"Soul the refuge (Saran.am.attano)" DN 2.120
Jataka-2 #1341 “tattha atta’ va sarathi” ------“the Soul is Charioteer”
The Buddhist term Anatman (Sanskrit), or Anatta (Pali) is an adjective in sutra used to refer to the nature of phenomena as being devoid of the Soul, that being the ontological and uncompounded subjective Self (atman) which is the “light (dipam), and only refuge” [DN 2.100]. Of the 662 occurrences of the term Anatta in the Nikayas, its usage is restricted to referring to 22 nouns (forms, feelings, perception, experiences, consciousness, the eye, eye-consciousness, desires, mentation, mental formations, ear, nose, tongue, body, lusts, things unreal, etc.), all phenomenal, as being Selfless (anatta). Contrary to countless many popular (=profane, or = consensus, from which the truth can ‘never be gathered’) books (as Buddhologist C.A.F. Davids has deemed them ‘miserable little books’) written outside the scope of Buddhist doctrine, there is no “Doctrine of anatta/anatman” mentioned anywhere in the sutras, rather anatta is used only to refer to impermanent things/phenomena as other than the Soul, to be anatta, or Self-less (an-atta).
Specifically in sutra, anatta is used to describe the temporal and unreal (metaphysically so) nature of any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal, and temporal things, from macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter as pertains the physical body, the cosmos at large, including any and all mental machinations which are of the nature of arising and passing. Anatta in sutra is synonymous and interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanent); all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. Such as: “All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta.” It should be further noted that, in doctrine, that the only noun which is branded permanent (nicca), is obviously and logically so, the noun attan [Skt. Atman], such as passage (SN 1.169).
What has Buddhism to say of the Self? "That's not my Self" (na me so atta); this, and the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta) predicated of the world and all "things" (sabbe dhamma anatta); Identical with the Brahmanical "of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul", (anatma hi martyah [SB., II. 2. 2. 3]). [KN J-1441] “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”. For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but what it is not. There is never and nowhere in sutra, a ‘doctrine of no-Soul’, but a doctrine of what the Soul is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.). It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical “self” in the very meaning of “my-self” (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta, i.e. Bob, Sue, Larry etc.), one might say in accordance with the command ‘denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what modern and highly unenlightened writers mean to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say and do in fact say, is that the Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata), Supreme-Self (mahatta’), uncaused (samskrta), undying (amara) and eternal (nicca) of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta’, “This/these are not my Soul” (na me so atta’= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama), a statement to which the words of Sankhara are peculiarly apposite, “Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real” [Br. Sutra III.2.22]; since it was not for the Buddha, but for the nihilist (natthika), to deny the Soul. For, [SN 3.82] “yad anatta….na me so atta, “what is anatta…(means) that is not my Atman”; the extremely descriptive illumination of all thing which are Selfless (anattati) would be both meaningless and a waste of much time for Gotama were (as the foolish commentators espousing Buddhism’s denial of the atman) to clarify and simplify his sermons by outright declaring ‘followers, there is no atman!’, however no such passage exists. The Pali for said passage would be: ‘bhikkhave, natthattati!’; and most certainly such a passage would prove the holy grail and boon for the Theravadin nihilists (materialists) who have ‘protesteth too much’ that Buddhism is one in which the atman is rejected, but to no avail or help to their untenable views and position by the teachings themselves.
Outside of going into the doctrines of later schisms of Buddhism, such as Sarvastivada, Theravada, Vajrayana, Madhyamika, and lastly Zen, the oldest existing texts (Nikayas) of Buddhism which predate all these later schools of Buddhism [The Sanchi and Bharut inscriptions (aka the Pillar edicts) unquestionably dated to the middle of the second century B.C.E. push the composition of the 5 Nikayas back to a earlier date by mentioning the word “pañcanekayika” (Five Nikyas), thereby placing the Nikayas as put together (no later than) at a period about half way between the death of the Buddha and the accession of Asoka (before 265 B.C.), as such the 5 Nikayas, the earliest existing texts of Buddhism, must have been well known and well established far earlier than generally perceived. Finally proving the majority of the five Nikayas could not have been composed any later than the very earliest portion of the third century B.C.E.], anatta is never used pejoratively in any sense in the Nikayas by Gotama the Buddha, who himself has said: [MN 1.140] “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering (that being avijja, or nescience/agnosis), and its ending (avijja).” Further investigation into negative theology is the reference by which one should be directed as to a further understanding of this 'negative' methodology which the term anatta illuminates. It should be noted with great importance that the founder of Advaita Vedanta, Samkara used the term anatman lavishly in the exact same manner as does Buddhism, however in all of time since his passing, none have accused Samkara of espousing a denial of the Atman. Such as: “Atma-anatma vivekah kartavyo bandha nuktaye”“The wiseman should discriminate between the Atman and the non-Atman (anatman) in order to be liberated.” [Vivekacudamani of Samkara v. 152], “Anatman cintanam tyaktva kasmalam duhkah karanam, vintayatmanam ananda rupam yan-mukti karanam.””Give up all that is non-Atman (anatman), which is the cause of all misery, think only of the Atman, which is blissful and the locus of all liberation.” [Vivekacudamani of Samkara v. 379], “Every qualifying characteristic is, as the non-Atman (anatman), comparable to the empty hand.” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 6.2], “the intellect, its modifications, and objects are the non-Atman (anatman).” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 14.9], “The gain of the non-Atman (anatman) is no gain at all. Therefore one should give up the notion that one is the non-Atman (anatman).” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 14.44]. In none of the Buddhist suttas is there support for "there is no-atman" theories of anatta . The message is simply to cease regarding the very khandhas in those terms by which the notion of atman has, itself, been so easily misconstrued. As has been shown, detaching oneself from the phenomenal desire for the psycho-physical existence was also a central part of Samkara’s strategy. There is, hence, nothing in the suttas that Samkara, the chief proponent of Advaita Vedanta, would have disagreed with.
Guru devo Namaha 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
When someone "thinks" they are thought free they are having a thought. That thought is saying "I am thought free" and that is thinking. And that is exactly where the investigation should take "you". Simply see that. The mind can't get you there. It's a process. "You: is the process. This is very subtle stuff
I would like to hear him about nihilism too.
I prefer Rupert Spira’s how to regarding difficult emotions. Either focus on the “I“ as in “I am experiencing anger” (vedantic approach), or bring the anger as close as possible to the sense of self, until it becomes indistinguishable (tantric approach).
The question remains is there a “something” that notices the anger arise and stops the emotion?
Thanks for the clear explanations. Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu
"you" have a choice, so there is a "self", you are just learning a skill to not give a shit...which is a skill that comes naturally to few people in our society
But if there is no-self who is doing the Karma and who is choosing?
Attention ! Buddha never said there is no such thing as a soul, be careful.
Anatta is a teaching technique to discern the self deception of our identification with what we think we are. It is a subtle insight.
A question. It seems to me that there are two ways that something can be unreal. On the one hand, a thing might be unreal in the way all phenomena are unreal, as names we give to fleeting occurances. So in that way, you might say that even the most mundane things, lika horses, are ultimately unreal, as they are constantly changing. On the other hand, there are things that are unreal even as phenomena, for instance a unicorn. It's not that the unicorn is in constant flux and therefore unreal; there's simply no phenomenon that corresponds to the word. So I wonder, is the self unreal in the sense that a horse is ultimately unreal, or is it unreal in the sense that a unicorn is unreal, in that there is no such phenomenon at all?
Buddhism's Anatta and Hinduism's Atman are both right.
If you look in Egoistic view of the soul 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 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.
Nah. Buddha rejected Hinduism
If there is non self than who is making the choice, you said we have a choice?
The conventional perception of the self is a delusion, yet self preservation is the strongest instinct in all living beings. What an interesting paradox.
Perhaps this is the reason "no self" is so difficult to understand. Could you sacrifice your own existence for the common good if it was necessary? I would very much enjoy hearing you speak about this some time. Thanks for sharing your wisdom.
Thank you
If someone dies what continues? How does karma find its way through rebirth?
What continues after death is the process of dependent origination itself. Buddhism doesn’t see a discrete ‘self’, it sees causal relationships between various phenomena, and these give rise to ‘being’ ‘birth’ and ‘death’. After death, the cycle repeats ad infinitum as long as there is ignorance of the true nature of things, as this ignorance causes craving and clinging which causes rebirth. The nature of this rebirth is conditioned by the habitual tendencies and kamma of the being as it dies. So what continues on isn’t anything especially ‘personal’, its more like an echo of the past. An enlightened being recognises that this impersonal ‘echo’ is how the present moment is unfolding as well, so rebirth isn’t fundamentally different to moment to moment existence right here and now.
The Atman. 😂 Modern Day Buddhist have never read it themselves . Just listen to their guru who has no clue of what they are talking about . I don’t care if it sound egotistical or not . Siddhartha never said no soul. He means no self not Self. The lower self is what he’s referring to on a metaphysical level
@@SithSolomon he never talks about higher or lower self. he never says there is a soul. this is something that you should seriously think about, because if the answer was 'there is actually a soul' he would have said as much, but he did not. But he also did not say there is not a soul. Meditate on this question.
@@nathanduncan6919 I have for years. This is why I’m going to enlighten you on the topic. Religion or “Group Think” is nothing by secularized Metaphysics. In any philosophical studies in history there has always been “2” Selfs. There has always been a higher and a Lower. Now I will let you answer this for yourself. “What is being liberated”, When the consciousness is going what is transmigrating. What is the 9th consciousness in so called Buddhism . Sound a lot like what?
@@nathanduncan6919 Anatta Meant : Not-Soul, it did not mean No-Soul. It’s a Negative connotation of what it is not. Matter of fact even the name Buddhism isn’t technically correct . Furthermore. Most modern Buddhist are undercover Nihilists and Atomist. They have taken a great teaching and Bastardized it to the point that it is damn near no where near the actual teaching at times. Honestly . The Anatta doctrine isn’t even a doctrine or factual . From Siddhartha . Not your guru . Not your mentor . Not your belief of what it is. IF YOU HAVE NO SOUL THEN WHAT IS TRANSMIGRATING. IF THERE IS NO SUBJECT WHO IS AWARE OF THE OBJECT. My goodness. The human race is doomed if this is the highest level of consciousness that we have reached so far
Sadhu sadhu sadhu
Using the English word 'soul' for atman is problematic on a lot of levels. For one, the term 'soul' is a lot more vague and borderline nebulous than what an atman is supposed to be. For example, ask someone if their 'soul' can change it's mind about something, or if it could forget anything. You'd either get an "I don't know", or "why wouldn't it?". Therefore, conflating what a westerner would call his 'soul' with the dharmic atman, creates more problems than it's worth.
Well if you look in the Pali English dictionary for anatta, soulless is a valid English definition for the word.
I also think it fits best because the Buddha never answered if there was or was not a self. He denied anything nicca, permanent/stable. The typical western understanding of a soul is a permanent everlasting thing that lives forever, this goes directly against anicca, so I find soul actually works well on many levels for westerners.
I admit when I first head monastics use the word no/not-soul, I too didn't like it, but after my growth in understanding of anatta I think it is quite valid and perhaps even the best way to explain anatta.
@@Maggasekha He didn't answer on one occasion and did on another. Just like the question about 'God' existing. And this is a case of getting the English word 'soul' wrong. Long has atman been translated as 'soul' by non-native speakers of English, but this was a mistake from the beginning.
These CAN be the same thing, but 'soul' is much more vague and nebulous a word than atman. You could even, if you are of a skeptical persuasion, call your own mind, volitions, and memories, a 'soul' if you were also of a romantical disposition. And those things exist. The fact that they are always changing does not conflict with the definition of a 'soul'.
@@MaggasekhaNo in pali it means NO SELF. Nothing about the soul. I’m sorry to tell you this . But this is nihilism at its finest and is not what Siddhartha Taught. You are leading people to hell with this nonsensical grammatical error
Okay. You say my mind wanted to sing and you being an observer then who is that observer if its not a self ?
“Observer” is just another word to try and grasp the illusion of being awareness
Thank You 🙂
Atman is awareness, not a person or ego.
OM Neti Neti
You cannot possess soul. I have.. I is ego. There is no truth is self. Selflessness is humility is acknowledgment of truth. To think “I” is to place your entire consciousness on your self
Buddha also faced with the hard problem of consciousness
In a world gone blind, I beat the drum of the deathless - Buddha
The deathless is the Atman
And
There is, monks, an unborn[1] - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated. If there were not that unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born - become - made - fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, escape from the born - become - made - fabricated is discerned.[2] - Buddha
And again, the Atman.
The Buddha didn't teach there is no Atman. He taught the mind and the body aren't the Atman. The no self teachings are about the mind and body, not the Atman/Buddha nature/Primordial citta/Deathless/ etc etc.
No Atman = after you become an Arahant, and pass away, you destroy yourself. If there's no Atman, what happens to you after you escape from rebirth? You just go out of existence. This is self destruction. Nihilism. The Buddha didn't teach that. The Buddhas Atman is alive right now. He came to visit Ajahn Mun after Ajahn Mun became an Arahant. Buddhism isn't nihilism.
Nice, but atman is not what buddhist tells,
They take it in relative sense,
Thank you so much for shared! And, i have questions... Do you read Pali? Do you know how many times Sakamune quoted the ADJECTIVE Anatta in the Nikayas, i mean, did you read the Pali Canon? Do you know what Brahmayama is? You turned an ADJECTIVE into a proper NOUN because of your historical ignorance... If X is not A, If X is not B, If X is not C: so I can't say that X doesn't exist. You are not good in logic yet, sorry.
Atta’sarana anan’n’asarana.------"Soul as a refuge with none other as refuge” DN 2.100
“Atta’ ca me so saranam gati ca” --------“The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto” Jatakapali 1441 Akkhakandam
"Soul the refuge (Saran.am.attano)" DN 2.120
Jataka-2 #1341 “tattha atta’ va sarathi” ------“the Soul is Charioteer”
The Buddhist term Anatman (Sanskrit), or Anatta (Pali) is an adjective in sutra used to refer to the nature of phenomena as being devoid of the Soul, that being the ontological and uncompounded subjective Self (atman) which is the “light (dipam), and only refuge” [DN 2.100]. Of the 662 occurrences of the term Anatta in the Nikayas, its usage is restricted to referring to 22 nouns (forms, feelings, perception, experiences, consciousness, the eye, eye-consciousness, desires, mentation, mental formations, ear, nose, tongue, body, lusts, things unreal, etc.), all phenomenal, as being Selfless (anatta). Contrary to countless many popular (=profane, or = consensus, from which the truth can ‘never be gathered’) books (as Buddhologist C.A.F. Davids has deemed them ‘miserable little books’) written outside the scope of Buddhist doctrine, there is no “Doctrine of anatta/anatman” mentioned anywhere in the sutras, rather anatta is used only to refer to impermanent things/phenomena as other than the Soul, to be anatta, or Self-less (an-atta).
Specifically in sutra, anatta is used to describe the temporal and unreal (metaphysically so) nature of any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal, and temporal things, from macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter as pertains the physical body, the cosmos at large, including any and all mental machinations which are of the nature of arising and passing. Anatta in sutra is synonymous and interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanent); all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. Such as: “All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta.” It should be further noted that, in doctrine, that the only noun which is branded permanent (nicca), is obviously and logically so, the noun attan [Skt. Atman], such as passage (SN 1.169).
What has Buddhism to say of the Self? "That's not my Self" (na me so atta); this, and the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta) predicated of the world and all "things" (sabbe dhamma anatta); Identical with the Brahmanical "of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul", (anatma hi martyah [SB., II. 2. 2. 3]). [KN J-1441] “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”. For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but what it is not. There is never and nowhere in sutra, a ‘doctrine of no-Soul’, but a doctrine of what the Soul is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.). It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical “self” in the very meaning of “my-self” (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta, i.e. Bob, Sue, Larry etc.), one might say in accordance with the command ‘denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what modern and highly unenlightened writers mean to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say and do in fact say, is that the Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata), Supreme-Self (mahatta’), uncaused (samskrta), undying (amara) and eternal (nicca) of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta’, “This/these are not my Soul” (na me so atta’= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama), a statement to which the words of Sankhara are peculiarly apposite, “Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real” [Br. Sutra III.2.22]; since it was not for the Buddha, but for the nihilist (natthika), to deny the Soul. For, [SN 3.82] “yad anatta….na me so atta, “what is anatta…(means) that is not my Atman”; the extremely descriptive illumination of all thing which are Selfless (anattati) would be both meaningless and a waste of much time for Gotama were (as the foolish commentators espousing Buddhism’s denial of the atman) to clarify and simplify his sermons by outright declaring ‘followers, there is no atman!’, however no such passage exists. The Pali for said passage would be: ‘bhikkhave, natthattati!’; and most certainly such a passage would prove the holy grail and boon for the Theravadin nihilists (materialists) who have ‘protesteth too much’ that Buddhism is one in which the atman is rejected, but to no avail or help to their untenable views and position by the teachings themselves.
Outside of going into the doctrines of later schisms of Buddhism, such as Sarvastivada, Theravada, Vajrayana, Madhyamika, and lastly Zen, the oldest existing texts (Nikayas) of Buddhism which predate all these later schools of Buddhism [The Sanchi and Bharut inscriptions (aka the Pillar edicts) unquestionably dated to the middle of the second century B.C.E. push the composition of the 5 Nikayas back to a earlier date by mentioning the word “pañcanekayika” (Five Nikyas), thereby placing the Nikayas as put together (no later than) at a period about half way between the death of the Buddha and the accession of Asoka (before 265 B.C.), as such the 5 Nikayas, the earliest existing texts of Buddhism, must have been well known and well established far earlier than generally perceived. Finally proving the majority of the five Nikayas could not have been composed any later than the very earliest portion of the third century B.C.E.], anatta is never used pejoratively in any sense in the Nikayas by Gotama the Buddha, who himself has said: [MN 1.140] “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering (that being avijja, or nescience/agnosis), and its ending (avijja).” Further investigation into negative theology is the reference by which one should be directed as to a further understanding of this 'negative' methodology which the term anatta illuminates. It should be noted with great importance that the founder of Advaita Vedanta, Samkara used the term anatman lavishly in the exact same manner as does Buddhism, however in all of time since his passing, none have accused Samkara of espousing a denial of the Atman. Such as: “Atma-anatma vivekah kartavyo bandha nuktaye”“The wiseman should discriminate between the Atman and the non-Atman (anatman) in order to be liberated.” [Vivekacudamani of Samkara v. 152], “Anatman cintanam tyaktva kasmalam duhkah karanam, vintayatmanam ananda rupam yan-mukti karanam.””Give up all that is non-Atman (anatman), which is the cause of all misery, think only of the Atman, which is blissful and the locus of all liberation.” [Vivekacudamani of Samkara v. 379], “Every qualifying characteristic is, as the non-Atman (anatman), comparable to the empty hand.” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 6.2], “the intellect, its modifications, and objects are the non-Atman (anatman).” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 14.9], “The gain of the non-Atman (anatman) is no gain at all. Therefore one should give up the notion that one is the non-Atman (anatman).” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 14.44]. In none of the Buddhist suttas is there support for "there is no-atman" theories of anatta . The message is simply to cease regarding the very khandhas in those terms by which the notion of atman has, itself, been so easily misconstrued. As has been shown, detaching oneself from the phenomenal desire for the psycho-physical existence was also a central part of Samkara’s strategy. There is, hence, nothing in the suttas that Samkara, the chief proponent of Advaita Vedanta, would have disagreed with.
But I don't want to lose self! 😖
Shinrin Yoku there were never a self to begin with
thats the false self saying that he dont wanna lose self
hahaha
Atman is not a jiva-soul. Atman is impersonal so it is not a unique entity of a jiva. There is one Atman, no your or my Atman separate. It is The Self, not a self. Actions, bodies doesn’t touch Atman. Consciousness appears on Atman but Atman is untouched by it. It is oneness and it is realized when separateness disappears. Please don’t misinterpret. When people who aren’t realized try to preach others instead of focusing on their realization, all these issues happen leading to more separateness. More separateness, not Atman or Anatma. May we make our separateness disappear forever.
What’s the point of liberation if there is nothing to liberate. Concept of Anatta makes Buddhism quite like nihilism if not worst.
Certainly there is the false understanding of the mind thinking it is a self, which is illusion, and causes quite a bit of stress and narrow living, that needn't be. Wouldn't that be sufficient enough of an idea of liberation? Not sure if your question was rhetorical or not, but in the off chance you are sincerely asking, this is the answer I have for you =) Peace and love.
@@LokeyeMC If Anatta means "No Soul"....what is being liberated??? So why follow buddhism...its like a moralistic nihilism....u get me?
I don't know, but I think that liberation is realising there is nothing/no one to liberate. Sounds good. Then you carry on with
life knowing the self was just a concept.
@@alanwhitehead9756 Ight.....but are you making the statement that Souls are “unreal”. Or are you just using the idea of No Soul as a kind of mental trick to help you in liberation. Cause liberation is not mentally saying or believing there is no soul either...you actually have to use neti neti on a spiritual level like you literally become a non passionate observer of reality
No Soul means no existence how can you exist without a soul....I don’t understand
@@TheLastOutlaw-KTS Hey there! The thing that is being liberated has not container that could possibly be identified. The liberation itself is the idea of a container. But once you're living in a space of no-container (no soul?), the source of awareness seems to be stemming from an infinite portal into deep silence, or something like that. It's hard to describe with words to be honest but I feel it all the time. I think that's what "no soul" means, is just an additional reminder to not latch onto containers, even after the first liberation of realizing the body/mind aren't your containers. Does that clear it up at all? My thoughts are that it's a semantic thing, but we're in a space where words can easily get in the way since we're talking about concepts that have no container or substance to them, as if the experience was coming from dark matter or anti-matter or something of that suchness.
So those in the LGBTQIA communities are heavy in the self and are inevitably suffering deeply? How then are there gay Buddhists? They have not realized anatta?
Modern Buddhist have no idea that THIS DOES NOT MEAN NO SOUL. Buddhism means Brahmayana The path to the absolute . It’s kind of degrading to Siddhartha to preach this nonsense. Anatta is a Via-Negativa meaning saying everything the soul is not. It’s the Same as Advaita Vedanta . Y’all are saying the same thing in 2 different ways
You are absolutely correct. Ken Wheeler is the guy who translated ancient pali and has proved this to be true. Buddhism has strayed far from its original teachings.
@@MarkErrington Indeed. Another aspect of Buddhism that has not been proclaimed properly is the subject of the three truths. No one wants to talk about it.
Ku-Spiritual/Mental (Unseen)/Absolute
Ke-Physical/ Material (Seen)/Relative
Chu-Middle Way (Seen & Unseen) The Spiritual is the Physical. The Unseen came before the Seen. Then back to the Unseen.
The Soul is Transmigrating . That’s what truly holds this seen and unseen aspect of reality together.
You have no clue what you're talking about
No. The Buddha never said all is impermanent. Yes he said everything (every THING) is impermanent, but not all. The Deathless is eternal. When the mind sees all perceiveable or conceivable or senses as dukkha, impermanent, conditioned, and annatta, and the mind lets go... then the eternal Deathless is revealed.
Please pass to the speaker. But I did love his response otherwise for whatever thats worth.
This is not a competent monk