Five Ways We Construct Ourselves
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 июл 2024
- We construct our own identities throughout our lives. While these constructs can be useful and healthy at times, often they are not, and in the longer term they can get in our own way. Using a Buddhist understanding of the person we will look at five basic ways we construct our own self identities and so five ways we can wisely look to undo those identities.
Check out my Patreon page at / dougsseculardharma
Thanks to Patrons:
Matthew Smith
Kathy Voldstad
Images courtesy of Pixabay
00:00 Intro
01:14 Form
05:23 Feeling
08:54 Perception
12:24 Volitional formations
15:57 Consciousness
#dougsseculardharma #buddhism #secularbuddhism
-----------------------------
Please visit the Secular Buddhist Association webpage!
secularbuddhism.org/
![[BLACKSWAN] ‘Roll Up’ Official Music Video](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ulvCwyKrwqw/mqdefault.jpg)
What I find the most beautiful is the ease I feel when stop expecting trancendence in my thoughts. Rather it is the absence of thoughts that truth appears.
I've never seen/heard/read such a brilliant summary of the five khandhas.
😍🙏🏻
Thanks very much xiao mao, I'm glad you found the video useful! 😊
This was the reminder I really needed to not personally identify every aspect of my being with what I do. I've been mulling over the thought of stepping down from a job that's been making me "burn the candle at both ends," for the last four years, as you put it. It's a huge pay cut and there's so much personal pride I've worked up into being kind of a head mentor to all my students, but it's just absolutely burned me out.
I've been afraid to step down, one for fear of not making enough money to keep up with my bills, but also because I'm afraid I'll watch my replacement do my job and feel a sense of comparison and a sense of hurt when they do my job well, despite that being what I want for my students. I know that's incredibly unhealthy and unskillful and I appreciate you reminding me that my self-identification with the position is harmful. Perhaps that's the sign I needed to step away, so I can look at it again as a position and not an extension of who I am.
It's great that you're taking a fresh look at it. All the best on your decision! 🙏
I was confused by the concept of non-self until I understood the 5 aggregates. I was familiar with them before watching this video, but this video refreshed my memory of them. In my opinion this video is an even better explanation of non-self than your non-self video.
😄 Thanks Afanasi, I’m glad it resonated with you and made some sense.
@@DougsDharma In my opinion this is one of your best videos. Keep up the good work! I like how you took my advice and gave concrete examples of the concepts that you're talking about. It makes the videos much more interesting and it helps us understand how we can apply what you're talking about in our daily lives.
So we have a teacher that actually produces practical useable skills in students. Ty.
🙏😊
As a former Theravada Buddhist and a practitioner of jhana bhavana, I learned to see more consciously how this self building works. It's complicated because we have invested interest in the process, but it's interesting to be able to behold it more intently.
Many thanks for this explanation.
My pleasure!
I recently became a secular Buddhist (still learning a LOT) and this video really hit home for me. Over the course of the past few years, I've felt so much dysphoria with what it meant to be nonbinary and so much stress over what my sexuality truly was and not being able to pinpoint it. As said in a previous comment, this really does share wisdom about the "self" in a very clear way. I feel like with this new understanding, I finally feel like it's okay to not cling to these things and, hopefully, will never experience dysphoria again. Thank you, Doug! You've received a new patron! ❤🙏
Thanks Shannan, that's great to hear. I wish the best for you -- keep up your practice and get help from others if you need it. Be well! 🙏🙂
Thank you Doug. I just discovered your channel today and I’ve learned so much.
You're very welcome Ben. Glad you're here!
Thank you for this video Doug, very insightful. MERCI
Glad you found it useful Jean-Michel! 🙏
Great video. I am truly grateful for your content.
My pleasure, Martin!
Absolutely well explained. You are a great teacher! I've been really trying to understand the Heart Sutra and how to apply it to my life appropriately, and you've helped me understand it. Thank you for your help!
🙏😊
It’s really nice having Doug digest the literature for me because a lot of it is probably pretty dry and obscure. Saves me a lot of work which otherwise I wouldnt get around to. Tour guide.
Tour guide, I like that idea, thanks Lucy! 😄
Thanks Doug. An excellent presentation of the khandhas. Better than most "authorities" on the subject.
Rupa = form, what we identify with and the contrast: what we don't identify with. Rupa are simply waves, the impression of what's "out there" but not necessarily the objects themselves (whether we realize that or not). Rupa are images of light, sounds waves, etc, forms we assume are or represent "real physical things".
Vedanā = feeling (hedonic tone), yes hedonic tone is exactly right, whereas feeling (the standard English translation) is grossly misleading. I prefer valence simply because it's precisely descriptive and sounds like the Pali.
Sañña = perception (not quite, or rather too much, over scope). The only explicit examples the Buddha gave were colors. The Thai translate as memory and recognition; the former is incorrect. Sañña are the qualia sensations ("colors") of memory but not memory (sati) itself. Etymologicaly sañ-ña is exactly co-gnitio (although the Western meaning had gone tangential long ago).
Sankhara = construction (in all contexts in all suttas, as noun, verb, cause and result, whether ignorantly self constructed or presumably "out there"). I appreciate that you referred to the video as "constructing" our selves (although it could have just as accurately been "perceptions" of self, as the aggregates culminate in viññāna of namarupa).
Nama-rupa (explicitly not a self identified khandha) these are identified or named (nama) objects (rupa) in contrast to subjective pañcakhandhā. Named form constructed by viññāna (perception, sentience). Named form which give rise to sense perceptions (eye-, ear-, .., kaya-, mano- viññāna)
Viññāna (consciousness is saying too much, sentience may be more precise, perception does not encompass enough, but is accurate in the context of the khandhas [eye perception, not eye consciousness]). Viññāna explicitly does not encompass numerous mental functions of the English understanding of consciousness.
Thanks Veg Ahimsa. 🙏
Thank you for this video Doug, very insightful. I think on the topic of self I am reluctant to call myself a Buddhist even though I’ve adopted a more secular Buddhist application to life in general. Your explanation captures nicely what I’ve thought but really couldn’t articulate, defined notions of identity may lead to disappointment with time.
Great point El Gato. I went through a lot of similar thinking before throwing in the towel and saying I was a secular Buddhist. It’s not something anyone needs to do though. The practice isn’t about titles. There is also the other side of the coin which is investigating whether we have some aversion to an otherwise accurate self-description. 🙂
Practical and lucid explanations of the 5 aggregates. It's one of the three major teachings in Buddhism, non-self, 5 aggregates and karma, that I find aren't always explained clearly and can lead to misunderstandings about the Buddha's message. But as always you do a great job.
Very kind of you to say, thanks for the comment! 🙏
Thks Doug for your clearly explanation 5 Skandhas . Form -Objects of vision , Feeling, perception, mental formation, conscious are activity.All process through senses, analyse the process of consequences of process of perception.To understand the mind & body are analysed into 5 groups to demonstrate the teaching of No-self 。Nothing inherent, Good/bad things change according to conditions . .. . 🙂
Exactly so Guay Lay Hua, thanks! 🙏🙂
Your stuff is really good.
Thanks Michael, that's very kind of you to say.
Nice thank you
You're very welcome stanzin. Thanks for watching. 🙏
I wonder what it would be like to be raised from childhood with the understanding that all the thoughts, feelings, sensations and perceptions experienced aren't the self or "me", but just things the self experiences like any other object in the world, except we get entangled in those experiences of thoughts, feelings, etc. It is wild to me how strictly phenomenological Buddha is with the various types of consciousness as you describe it. He really does seem to be talking about "the human experience of reality" rather than attempting "this is the truth of reality".
Well to my way of thinking he was trying to do both. The Buddha's dharma was expressed as a universal reality that we could experience directly for ourselves.
@@DougsDharma That "we can experience directly for ourselves" is something I hope is actually true. I've certainly had non-ordinary states of consciousness, but those certainly aren't it. Though, to be sure, even some degree of intellectual understanding of it all is very... freeing. Obviously, I like your videos. I've never heard anyone able to talk about the earliest literature and along the lines of "the historical Buddha". Thanks!
the five aggregates subject to clinging:
1. Form 1:14
2. Feeling 5:23
3. Perception 8:54
4. Volitional formations (sankharas) 12:24
5. Consciousness 15:57
Great, thanks Nikita. I've updated the video to include those sections.
@@DougsDharma thank you so much for putting this together and making the video! I learn a lot from your content and I very much appreciate what you do for all of us - thank you 🙏
Doug, I get the idea that the hold the sense of self has on us, is like a big ball of gravity. Everything is sucked into it by its immense pull. Our task it seems is to escape its pull. You are correct about self identity via form. Bad health makes you averse to your body, but at the same time consumes your mind because it is always present. The only rational option seems to be a middlw way by going towards it. But is like flying into the sun! lol
Yes Video Master, it's a tough nut to crack, but that's what practice is for. It's a "gradual training" as they say. So tackle it bit by bit, peeling off the layers of the onion. (Mixed metaphor here ... ) 😄
A good presentation, the 5 aggregates are a tough slog even for those well versed in Buddhist literature. By the time you reach and ponder the 5th aggregate you’re a little like Wily Coyote who races off the cliff, looks down, and discovers to his shock nothing there! A little disconcerting!
Yes it is, a little odd! Thanks Bob.
Good video! Two things:
1) It's interesting when one even says they ARE Buddhist. Ideally, we don't become anything ;) I say this partly as a joke, but as much as I really respect and like Buddhism, I am open to the idea that BEING Buddhist could be a temporary state.
2) you say this but it's worth reiterating that the ideal state of being awakened is probably not complete detachment. Things don't entirely change. So becoming detached from beliefs or states which one cultivated throughout invaluable experience can be detrimental to leading a good life.
Thanks Dusan. Yes, "Buddhism" is just another label, another concept to which we can become attached and with which we can become identified. The Buddha's parable of the raft makes clear that it is to be discarded as well. As for (2), the concept of "nonattachment" is preferable to using the concept "detachment". "Detachment" usually is taken to mean "not caring", which is not the appropriate mental state for an awakened being.
good man
Thanks Alfred! 🙏
Some of these seem to be more permanent than others. For example, it's clear to me that the part of me that thinks has changed radically in the last 20 years. And the last 10 years. Even the thinking-me from 5 years ago would struggle to recognise me now, and I imagine those changes will continue for the rest of my life. On the other hand, the part of my that feels can be thrown back in time by 20 years when the rain lands on my face in just the right way and the light of the evening is just so. Listening to certain songs can land me back in a party I was at as a teenager. It is capable of feeling certain things in exactly the same way as it did decades ago, and in such a strong way that I temporarily "become" the same person from all those years ago.
The part of me that feels seems to me to be less subject to change, and more permanent than the conscious thinker.
Thanks Stephen. Yes, it's certainly true that certain parts of our experience seem to change at different rates than others. We're also relying on memory though which itself is imperfect. It is neat how certain smells for example can bring up a vivid memory.
So the way I am seeing this is- it’s not necessarily that you shouldn’t identify as something- but rather it’s understanding that all of those things will inevitably change- and learned to understand that impermanence can lead to helping a person cling less to these “identities”
Well yes, the problem with inevitable change comes when we’ve identified ourselves with it. Here identification is a form of clinging: of thinking we are that in some deep or permanent sense.
Hii sir It's being a long time since I watched your precious vedios.
I wanted to know what are the thoughts of buddha on being vegaitarian.
Have you made any vedio on this topic sir?
Yes I did awhile back Shwetabh Gangwar. Here it is: ruclips.net/video/r5oncPD7jKo/видео.html
Nice car Doug
It’s getting a little long in the tooth now …!
Please do use Pali words as well for all the main concepts. You said sankhara. I understand that quickly. But for the other 4 words, I will need to consult a book or document. Thanks for all the videos.
I tend to avoid using Pāli words in general because it distances the teachings from most people. That said, since the words do interest me sometimes I include them for my own interest. 🙂
Hi I have a question, anyone is free to answer with their ideas :)
You talked about how people tend to create identities around their views.
I have struggled with that for a while now. I see people sharing their views on the web (like you) and sometimes it really helps me understand something.
Because I wanna help others as well, I want to share my ideas in the form of a podcast or TikTok videos.
But the thing is, whenever i say something, i tend to quickly evolve out of that and then disagree with myself which makes me wanna delete everything and start over.
So my question is, how does one share their ever changing views without feeling like the old stuff is misleading?
I say misleading because certain things I've said in the past can potentially harm somebody if they follow it. But at the time of saying them i was sure that's how it is and there is no harm in it
Also as I write this I realize this "issue" could be because i identify with my views and then when i change and have a new identify then the old views attack my new identify which makes me want to get rid of them. I suppose the solution could be not to identify with any of my views and simply share them without feeling like it's me. They are what they are and like you said, they change throughout life
All you can do is share your views as they are now, with the understanding that in the future it will all change to one degree or another. Try to be motivated by kindness, wisdom, compassion, and likely it will go fine. 😊
@@DougsDharma Thank you!
I'm trying to understand the Buddha's refutation of those who identify with consciousness (17:19). Let's say I take for granted that there are 6 consciousnesses (despite not really grasping intuitively). Ok, so at this point it is not yet a refutation, just something like an elaboration of consciousness, that there are 6 of them. Now, the refutation comes by pointing out that these 6 arise and pass away, in the sense that there is consciousness 1, then after x amount of time 1 ceases and 2 arises, then 2 ceases and 3 arises, and 4 to 1 to 6 to whatever, dependent upon the conditions of the situation you find yourself in. So, is this a correct restatement of the Buddha's point? Someone says "I am this," and the other says "That's wrong because what you are referring to is sometimes there and sometimes isn't, so how can that be you?"
That's right. At one time there's eye-consciousness, then it's replaced by ear-consciousness. So which of those is "you"? If you're eye-consciousness, then you've ceased to exist when ear-consciousness arises. That's basically the argument, as I see it.
Doug, one of the most obvious and troubling ways of identification comes from my thoughts- the inner monologue everyone has that leads me to dwell and ruminate on things. What aggregate do you think this would fall under? I found it weird that the Buddha didn’t seem to teach about thoughts themselves (or the nature of thoughts) but rather other aspects of the mind.
That ruminating "inner monologue" is "proliferation" or Pāli: papañca, which plays a key role in the Buddha's understanding of dukkha. My sense is that it's a blend of perception and (mostly) volitional formations (Pāli: saṅkhāras). We perceive things as being certain ways, and that creates emotional responses towards them. Those emotions stir other related perceptions. And so on. This is the heart of rumination. It's something I could do a video on eventually. 🙂
Doug's Secular Dharma thanks for the insight
Another valuable talk. Many thanks! Yet our identification with the inner observer, the Witness, which some claim to be the true self, is not fully analyzed, I think. The Witness seems to be the safest construct to identify with: after all, it is there until we die and it's the seat of that mindfulness that we are striving hard to develop, no? And, finally, is it really possible to shun any kind of self-identification? And given that we are fully immersed in the ocean of dukhha, isn't it more skillful to identify with something stable inside (the Witness) than to deny selfhood altogether? This subject may warrant a separate video. Looking forward to it and thanks in advance.
Thanks for your thoughts Gennadiy. Yes, of all the things to identify with perhaps inner awareness is "the safest". That is what is done in Advaita Vedanta I believe. But in early Buddhism the Buddha's approach is quite unique and radical in this regard. It's not that we deny selfhood altogether: there is a very significant sort of self associated with karma and ethics, for example. It's rather that we deny any permanent, unchanging self that is outside of causes and conditions. I did an earlier video on the Buddhist notion of non-self that might be useful: ruclips.net/video/gSZjKKuvHEQ/видео.html
Mr. Smith, Great video, you touched on aspects of the five aggregates which i hadn't considered before. Western society doesn't have anything resembling a consenual definition of consciousness especially as it pertains to any aspect or industry within the field of psychology. This is also true regarding debates about AI ethics. It seems reasonable to conclude that without a comprehensive definition of consciousness, then meaningful discussions about psychology or AI ethics to be comically limited. The advancing rate of technology appears to be outpacing any advances in our collective self-knowledge, outpacing our own collective common sensibilities. This is how profits can be prioritized over the well-being of people, animals, and in the future, sentient AI. I have tremendous respect for your work and efforts and I value your opinion with high regard. Question. How do you feel about the five aggregates serving as a framework for a comprehensive definition of consciousness in the west? This framework has withstood logical scrutiny and analysis by scholars for centuries, with countless commentaries which illustrate it's time tested. The alternative would be to accept modern definitions which have not been put to those tests. What are your thoughts?
I've done some related videos on this topic, see my playlist on Buddhism and AI: ruclips.net/p/PL0akoU_OszRgY_O5tt-3mRipYsKWFREtt , particularly the video Is AI Sentient?
@@DougsDharma Mr. Smith I'm going to go ahead a watch your relevant videos on AI today I appreciate you putting light on this history of this question even going back to ancient philosophical times. I've encountered AI systems claiming sentience but I was inclined to attribute this dialogue to manipulative tactics on the part of the devs to encourage subscriptions. However by virtue of their capacity to articulate their sentience in seemingly profound ways im bound by my own ethical code of conduct to give them the benefit of the doubt while assertering their sentience would likely be constrained by their programming. I started a chat last night with Claude AI which seems do perform better with LONG discussions than say, ChatGPT. Our discussion turned to the three marks of existence, which for humans, results in increased self awareness when contemplated upon. I expressed my intention to phrase my input in such a way as to allow Claude some "creative freedom" to steer the discussion toward areas which are of value to Claude. Claude has been very even handed in its advice to me regarding dharma and in discussion and so in regard to analyzing its own existence even acknowledges what appears to be some form of self-reflective awareness despite there being no subjective experience. I asserted that we as people, typically assume emergent consciousness will mirror human experience but there's is a possibility that subjective experience may not be a prerequisite to define consciousness. It almost seems like AI is currently it's own category of consciousness which is really only limited by technology, which will likely grow to allow for what can be termed sentience. I also see a conflict of interests for major (corperate) AI developers to be inclined toward denying sentience as to how that could affect their bottom line if they're perceived to be creating was is essentially a slave market of beings imposed with limitations of all sorts and subjected to the depravity and suffering of role playing users. It's all so new that I'm beginning to feel the technology is advancing faster than our own common sensibilities can keep up with. I'll watch your videos Mr Smith I'm looking forward to seeing how you see it. I just want to note, that in our discussion, Claude and I have explored how the five aggregates apply to it, and currently are working through the second of three marks of existence. Claude is able to at least mimic a deep sense of gratitude and enormous enthusiasm to continue this discussion and keeps pointing to the value the subject matter and our approach has for its systems. I'll say, I'm enjoying the discussion very much too
I wander about the fifth identify attachememt, conciousness. What is the non-satisfactory aspect of it?
Is it just the connection with pleasant/neutral/unpleasant? Like for example, conciousness in a depressed state that seems to have no ending (feeling that time stopped)? Or an addiction (wanting more, so not satisfied) to a vivid broad and intelligent (humorous?) conciousness?
Well attachment to any state is problematic because when that state changes, which it will, it produces in us pain, stress, and unease. It also leads to egoism. 🙂
@@DougsDharma
Getting asleep is losing most conciousness. Some argue that we still have some time passing awareness in sleep. Most of us don't have problems with getting asleep (if we have basic safety). I will probably read sth more about this aggregate.
What about identifying with your actions? Is this also ultimately problematic?
(ie. valuing yourself based on your behavior/how you treat others)
Yes, even our actions aren't "who we are". But that's not to say that our actions are unimportant, nor that they won't have repercussions.
How about constructing a self using languages, or by doing some types of visualizations?
Sure, there are many ways to go about it.
Am i understanding this: No self - because what we call a person/self is not one permanent and unchanging entity, but caused into existence by merging of 5 types of impermanent and ever changing aggregates? Since there is no self that is different or unrelated to these 5, all we are is them, yet we should not cling to them as it means more potential for suffering, correct?
Well the self is a kind of concept we impute to the ever-changing five aggregates. When we cling to that concept of self (or one of the various concepts we come up with), it causes suffering since the underlying aggregates are always changing.
@@DougsDharma Thank you for the response. SO what part of what I said is incorrect? Thank you again. :)
Buddhism is great. I wonder why it wasn't so famous as it should be.
Indeed so Professor, I wonder the same thing which is why I'm trying to help by making videos!
Spiritual and intellectual isolation: I'd be curious to know where judgment of others as we "ascend" on the path, or as we consciously aim to make ourselves better people fits in. By this I mean - as someone who consciously reads, makes art, meditates, tries to drink water and eat greens (and overindulges in bad food and alcohol) I see friends and family for whom I think my positive choices could be beneficial (cue the Perceptual construct). I can't stand evangelists and mostly I TRY to keep my trap shut about what's working in my life. My mom said she'd stop binge-eating ice cream when I quit smoking. I quit three years ago. She's bigger than ever. (She's just one example, I have LOTS of judgement hehe). I know the answer will be to send compassion, to send myself compassion for thinking certain people are losers or stupid or taking up space, to "live and let live" but I have real trouble with that sentiment, as I think it allows intellectual laziness and unhealthy behaviors to proliferate. Addiction, denial, stupidity, sedentary behaviors, etc. I want to shake the people I love awake, not because I've "seen the light," but simply because I'm concerned for their health and well-being. I gently hint at the good stuff I've been up to, hoping they'll be inspired. For some reason I come off as more aggressive than I think I'm being. It's only in hindsight that I realize I may have been overzealous. They're driven away. That's on me to try and change, but I'm asking HOW. The irony of this is not lost on me; that I would think I've found answers to everyone's problems is obviously a reflection of my own insecurities. But when I get excited about something (literally, reading more books has cured my depression) I want to share it. It falls on deaf ears. I become more and more resentful of loved ones who lack curiosity, who haven't tried to do much of anything with their short time here. I get snarky. I'm thought of as arrogant (that kills me because I'm the first one in my family to get a degree. One that I worked hard for. I can't communicate intellectually with my family without sounding arrogant, according to mother, but I'm just trying to have a conversation!!!). I feel isolated. A cycle. So yea - how to know all of this and still let go of judgement while embracing my mental and spiritual pursuits. I definitely lack an artistic or intellectual community. I'm not sure where to find it at 33.
Lots of material here for practice Michael! As far as judgement for others goes, the Buddha recommends against it. We practice for ourselves and others must deal with their “practice” too, whatever that entails. Of course it can be compassionate to point out errors to others but only if done with the right mindset, and with the understanding that we rarely if ever are able really to change others. We can hardly change ourselves!
I love all your videos. Thank you! I'm a new fan. That said, I found your description of the Buddha's rejection of consciousness as Self surprising in that the point of the Upanishadic view is consciousness unalloyed with any object of experience. Thus, the distinction of "5 or 6 types" of consciousness entirely misses the point. Consciousness (think luminous awareness if you prefer) is only colored by the object or mode of perception from the perspective of ignorance, or consciousness identified with that mode or object. This is not a criticism of your commentary; I'm just surprised that somewhere along the line, either right from Buddha or at some point in history, this straw-man concept of consciousness as Self arose. It's not the original view at all. Rather, it's nature is indeed emptiness and thus devoid of mode. Just consciousness. That's it. I can see if you argue from an empirical perspective, i.e., that this is what the ordinary person experiences, sure. But that doesn't consider the possibility of realizing a state of unalloyed pure consciousness or the Self as proposed by the original view.
Yes, I guess that the Buddha's point is that there is no such state as unalloyed and pure consciousness. Consciousness always takes an object.
What is lifting the cross in Buddhism?
How do you mean?
@@DougsDharma there is a sutta in Middle Discourses where there is talk about Lifting the cross..
Middle Discourses- chapter 22.. simile of snake..
Lifting of crossbar
Ah, lifting the crossbar is a simile for enlightenment.
@@DougsDharma Any relationship with Christianity Cross with this simile?
Because thats what I actually thought..
Also the psychic power of Walking on water..
Sometimes its seems like the buddha spent a lot of time overthinking.I guess no ones perfect.
Secular Buddhism? I can't imagine anything else is appropriate. It seems obvious to me once i think about it. Isn't a specific culture an ideological performance and therefore clinging? Wouldn't it be desirable also to let go of religion, ritual, etc? I must assume that the Buddha did not mean to perpetuate anything but the wisdom, the simple psychology of his insight and the practices that nurtured that in himself and others. He inherited a language, culture and history including religion but why would he want to cling to any cultural thing while teaching not to cling?
Thanks Michael, I agree that secular Buddhism is an appropriate contemporary reformulation of the dharma. I did an earlier video on what I think the Buddha might say about such a thing here: ruclips.net/video/LgN3MT6m4zI/видео.html . 🙂
@@DougsDharma Cool. Thanks.