🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂 📙 You can find my new book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
As usual , a clear and helpful talk. One thought though. All conditioned things are seen as impermanent and dukkha, but all dhammas as non-self Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma. It is not impermanent or dukkha but is still non-self. I would not see it as permanent in time but beyond time. That no permanent self or possession can be found is not equivalent to there not being anything that is permanent, in sense of timeless. Nibbana has nothing about 'it' that can support sense of 'I am', which would be needed for an essential, permanent self. On this see Mahanidana Sutta at DN.Ii.66-68. I hope your burnt study is back up and running. It reminds us that anything impermanent is 'on fire'... Best wishes, Peter Harvey
Thanks Peter, of course you are right about nibbāna being non-self. I hope I didn't give the impression otherwise! And yes, I suppose beyond time is right, though I hesitate to go there simply because I don't know how to conceive of such a thing unless it is some sort of abstractum, which I don't think it is. As for the study, it's on its way, in the rental apartment for now. And thanks so much for watching and commenting. 🙏
@@DougsDharma Hi Doug, my point was not that you were overlooking that nibbana is non-self. It was more that you could be seen as implying that the critique of taking anything as a permanent self
@@peterharvey845 I think it's a question as to whether nibbāna can be thought of as literally permanent or beyond time. Maybe so, maybe not. This seems to get into those "unanswered questions" ...
@@DougsDharma The undetermined questions you allude to are on an enlightened person after death. That is a different issue to that of *nibbana*, the unconditioned being beyond time Patissmbhidamagga II 241-2 sees nibbana as not impermanent. See eg my The Selfless Mind p.51
Up until now I didnt quite know how to articulate the fact that Ive been looking for something to cling to or hold on to . but I didnt know that what I was looking for I didnt know i was looking for a constant . i thought i was looking for an object or a concept ...i just knew something's missing; it was the fact that I can't get clear constant view of this realization of this thing that never changes . and this dreadful feeling of disconnection or fragmentation heart brokeness that I feel might come from knowing I'm utterly deluded
I've never actually commented on your channel, even though I've watched many of your videos. I really appreciate all the great work you do, Thx! BTW, I'm sorry about your house fire and I hope the repairs are proceeding well. All the best
Thanks so much Craig, that's very kind of you to say. As for the work on the house, it's proceeding very slowly and likely will be a year or so before it's all done.
It should be noted that all non-Theravada traditions of Buddhism and some Theravada traditions (Thai forest tradition, Dhammakaya, and some small Thai and Burmese traditions) have a teaching of a true self, a permanent self. And this was also the view of most of early Buddhists, ie the Mahasamghika branch. Post-Buddha names for it include the storehouse consciousness (alaya vijnana), root consciousness (mula vijnana), and Buddha-nature (Buddha-element, buddhadhatu, or Tathagata essence, tathagatagarbha), but it has roots in Pali Suttas. In the Suttas Buddha says that the five aggregates are the burden, but the person (puggala) is the burden-bearer (bhara-hara). He also says that a self-doer (atttakari) exists, and talks about the unseen consciousness (anidassana vinnana) and the luminous mind (pabhassara citta) which are beyond the aggregates and ayatanas.
Yes, I've discussed some of this in past videos. What is clear is that the Buddha never claimed there was "no self"; he had a subtle yet in some aspects robust notion of a conventional, changing self involved in action, practice, and karma.
In the various schools of Indian Buddhism, pre-Mahayana and Mahayana, the acceptance of a permanent Self is very rare. Some versions of the Tathagata-garbha have it, eg in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, and the Pudgalavadins had sa subtle person-self idea. The alaya-vijnana is still non-Self.
Pabhassara citta, or radiant mind is not beyond the aggregates. Taking it as a permanent self would be a block to deepening meditative insight. Likewise with anidassana vinnana.
I think that if I am drawn to correct the understanding of another then I'm holding the "I'm right and you're wrong" view, no matter how gently I try to "correct". I think seeking to comprehend the other's understanding and the reasons for it and then expressing how my understanding is different -- and then leaving it at that -- is the more equanimous approach.
Dough - very happy and appreciative to see you coming in addressing this repeated theme: emptiness that to my a little surprise you began to look into the commentarial literature in which many modern scholars would not look upon as sources of early Buddhism. In my understanding of the core teaching of the Buddha, as long as latent remnants of craving and clinging to anything still exists, there will be manifestation in one way or another of the possession, doctrine and/or view of "Self". "Self", "I", "mine" is basically the most extrinsic as well as intrinsic expression of craving and clinging which is the root source of the whole mass of suffering according to the second Noble Truth. Thanks for making such a fascinating video!
Yes, you're very welcome, Hendrick! I usually don't spend a lot of effort on the commentarial material, but sometimes it seems to provide some illumination that makes it worth mentioning, along with the caveat that it may not necessarily represent the earliest ideas.
@@pauloTARSO-sb3gl I don't think the Buddha ever talks about a transcendental Self like this, not in early texts for sure. On contrary, in many signature early discourses, it is the construction or identification of a metaphysical Self that is the root of suffering as beings' latent defilements, ignorance, craving and clinging reside. Check out MN1 Mulapariyaya sutta and DN1 Brahmajala sutta.
One thing of practical value in our practice is: the perception or clinging to any form of self is definitely a hindrance to enlightenment. Interestingly glimpses of the end of our journey, which cannot be considered as self, as i recall are as follows 1) suttas describing Nibbana as consciousness without surface (no contact point), without limit, radiant all around etc sutta also describes original citta as radiant (differentiated from pure citta). 2) Ajaan Mun in Ballard of liberation said there is nothing in the something, yet there is something in the nothing, but then there is nothing. 3). Other accomplished masters seem to say what remain is the pure citta, awareness without self or reaction. Cheers.
I like your last bit about using views as methods…reminds me of your video from a while back about how getting rid of views is not the point of the Buddhist path, but rather to have views that will take us where we need to go.
Emptiness of • posessions, • a (doctrine of) self, • views. Easy to understand, hard to practice - especially when facing war times like these... May you all be well! 🧡 Thanks, Doug, for another brilliant video! 🙏
Upanishadic saints and yogis weren't trying to find something permanent to cling to or own, but rather the infinite all-permeating brahman that is both reality experienced and infinitely beyond it. It is form, formless, and neither; beginningless, endless, whole, and yet infinitely capable of fragmentation. It is the infinite self, infinite existence, and requires all possibilities in order to maintain infinitude (which includes suffering and so on). From my research it really isn't about attaching to God/Brahman/Self, it isn't about Self being a "thing", it is about the experiencer, the one who is aware, is beyond all these "things" like body, mind, emotion, sensation, idea, memory, belief, and is actually one with Brahman, the infinite reality. The infinite reality has always been, it always will be, it is beyond form, and this is what the self (the one viewing) is: it is the infinite.
Thank you for this video. Across all beliefs and spectrums of faith respect I feel is so vital and love is my eternal embodiment in various ways personally.
Great video. Really helpful. This may be a stretch, but the poet John Keats' odes, "Ode on a Grecian Urn" and "Ode to a Nightingale" seem almost Buddhist based on a rereading - a desire for permanence of self and an understanding that it is impossible.
I had a dream onetime: A Chief or Shaman came to me and said “We are one with the universe, be apart of all living things “ It has been my central feeling about life ever since.☸️😉
Truth can not be put into words, and that’s the truth. However, the closest I've ever heard was Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj who said when asked “What is self?” His response was “That one is, is certain. What one is, not so much. One is the unblemished potential.” "Unblemished potential" wow that's pretty good.
The self that I currently know, while changing with experience, and the passage of time, has a continuity of identity. In that I am not the same person who was born into this world/construct, but there is a sense that some core consciousness has flowed through all of the changes. It would seem possible that that core consciousness could be eternal, without being unchanging. Enlightenment might put an end to that, or simply keep the consciousness from being drawn back into the physical
Sure. On the Buddha's understanding though, the consciousness we exhibit is itself always changing, and there is no core to consciousness anymore than there is a core to our physicality. See for example: th-cam.com/video/NoFF8-rA1zE/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for this Doug. The idea of the self has a long history in western philosophy so it can be confusing to understand what the Buddha meant by non self. IMO the Buddha was being quite specific about the aspects of self that are illusory. The self in this sense seems to be first person pronoun statements - "this is mine, this I am, this is my self" when these statements concern the 5 aggregates of form, feeling, perception, constucted concepts and conciousness. It would not mean that the Buddha would necessarily disagree, at least on this basis, with for example, Jung, who discusses the development of the consciousness of self, on the basis that such a self does not exist. The problem is perhaps we don't have any way of discussing our experience other than by using I statements and so it is therefore an easy trap to fall into, to believe that this grammatical convenience is a concrete reality. But I don't think the Buddha intended us to understand that our experiences in the body are illusory per se.
Hi Doug. I was wondering, why does the Buddha only equate an idea of a permanent self with the idea of no sorrow, lamentation and pain, in other words, no suffering? Is it not possible for example to have an idea of a permanent self, that we still haven't fully understood yet, but which doesn't necessarily give rise to bliss and no suffering. I mean you can still have an idea of a permanent self and suffering at the same time. Why would these two things necessarily be connected according to the Buddha? I know the Buddha would say that everything decays, but let's say you have a permanent self in a metaphysical sense, that is not clearly visible to us, because we see that everything changes, but still have suffering. Would that not be possible if we are open minded to other philosophical views? What is your opinion on that from a buddhist standpoint?
It's a great question, the concept of a permanent self that is a refuge of bliss comes from the surrounding culture, in particular probably the early Upaniṣadic and Jain thinkers. You will sometimes hear the phrase "Being, consciousness, bliss" (Sat, chit, ananda) in some Hindu teachings. These derive from the Upaniṣadic seers.
Actually there's lot of counter and re counter analysis debates regarding this topic which advaita vedanta took over throughout India during 8th century from time of which it became main school pushing back Buddhist and jain schools. Anyways as you know this things are interpreted differently in vedanta like self, aatman, questions of ignorance, sorrows I think you Going deep into advaita vedanta will help you understand what's difference between interpretation of upanishadic concepts between Buddhism and Vedanta. I suggest you to interact with swami sarvapriyananda of ramakrishna mission which would be a great discussion as he's also expert in Tibetan Buddhism
Buddha rebelled against vedanta in his entire life, people like Sarvapriyananda and his teacher Vevekananda and Shankharacarya were always against Buddha's teaching. He talks about Tibetian Buddhist which is far from Buddha's early teaching. Theravada Buddhist has the record of Authentic Early Buddhist Text. People like sarvapriyananda have destroyed the Gem of Buddha's teaching from its birthplace India. it doesnt make sense to equate buddhist idea of non-self to hindu true self
I have a large number of videos on meditation practices and techniques, but as to which kind to pursue, that depends on the person. I wouldn't want to make blanket recommendations, except perhaps to start with breathing meditation because it's relatively simple and easy to understand.
Self is the story we tell ourselves about how we fit into the world and society. It cannot be otherwise. There is no such thing as a transcendent self, but if there was, it wouldn't matter, because the transcendent is not accessible to us. There is no mechanism by which our mind - the patterns in the brain, can transcend our biological homeostasis.
I was wondering, after watching Doug's very informative video, if one could consider the Mindstream (citta-santāna) as a permanent self, as this is what continues after death, so is immune to death - or is deathless and seems permanent. The Mindstream is not complete, as there is always another life experience that is added on, but on reaching enlightenment, it is complete. So the "thread" that holds these life experiences together, whatever it is, would be the Permanent Self! What do you think about this?
Good question. I would imagine that the "mindstream" would only be a conventional way to discuss the ever-changing, causally conditioned arising of various mental and physical states one after the other. It's not a separate "thing" but rather a conceptual category. As well, the famous "unanswered question" as to what happens to the arahant after death would disallow us from saying anything in particular about it once an arahant dies.
@@DougsDharma Hi Doug thanks! One wonders how the mechanics of this works as at some point the person's individual Karma (wherever and whatever it is) interacts with the person's mindstream, to decide what lifeform the person will be born into in the next life! So the mindstream must be that person's life experiences and not any other person's! Seems like a self to me! haha! There are lots of unanswered questions here! :)
@@kgrandchamp Yes indeed, I've discussed a number of these issues in videos in my playlist about self and non-self, but at the end of the day the notion of karma over lifetimes doesn't fit perfectly with this idea of non-self IMO. So we get ideas like the bhavaṅga, the ālaya-vijñāna, etc.
Thanks for the clear and concise exposition, Doug. As I understand it, the brahmanic idea of 'puruṣa' (personhood) strongly influenced the development of early Mahayana thought ... perhaps illustrated by the emerging idea of Buddhakaya ... would you apply this to the simile of the 'raft' or something else? Thanks
How do you mean? Though the Buddha was quite clear in that simile that we should not cling to our views, that's not to say he had no views. It's simply to say that he didn't identify with them, nor was he perturbed when others disagreed with him or berated him for his views. That sort of thing. 🙂
Doug, have you done any videos involving the Buddha's view on art and artists? Being that I am an artist, I would like to see if he has anything positive to say about art and creativity - or if the Buddha sees no use for it.
Interested in the same thing, i found a bit of discussion on it on a stackexchange page I recommend looking up. I searched "art and right livelihood" or something. It may not be seen as positive.
As far as I know, Buddha said that arts (Including plays, movies and almost all entertainment today) generally create delusions for people. making people be infatuated with them and neglect doing fruitful works. In one Sutta, it said, the dancers would go to hell for creating delusions for people. In my interpretation, if the arts create the path to the end of delusions, greed, and hatred, Buddha would praise the arts. For example, if you are a writer and you create a story that teaches the readers the right morality lesson, ur arts would be considered good and lead u to heavens and happiness. But if your arts make people be infatuated with them, and neglect doing fruitful works, you would be creating delusions, temporary, deceptive sensual pleasures for the people to be infatuated with, and it will lead u to hells and suffering. Therefore, to conclude, I think arts, in general, are considered a bad thing according to Buddha as they create delusions. Though, they are some exceptions like the example I used. In the end, whether arts are good or bad, it is depending on the intentions of the artists creating the arts and the results that the arts cause.
I perceive me just like an onion. Each layer of the onion is not true me. Each layer is the suffer I need to face and peel it with the tear from the untrue me onion layer. I just let go the layer of untrue me. I hope I can one day face the true me which sits on the center of the onion root which is a very tiny green part in the deep inside of onion. I know I can not meet the true me in this life. I am looking forward finding the true self in the next many lives. Looking forward is a joy. English is not my primary language. Hope what I wrote makes sense to person who read it. Empty me is the best way to learn empathy and compassion.
For sure, very well said and understandable Sing Tsai! Maybe you will keep peeling back that onion and find there is no "true self" at the center, only layers after layers!
Something I’ve been wondering is how Buddhism interacts with Existentialism, and whether they are compatible? From what I know of both, they would seem to be. I could be mistaken.
Hard to say, I think it would depend on the kind of existentialism and the kind of Buddhism. It's been a very long time since I studied existentialist philosophy so I'm not really sure.
I see some connecting threads via the person of Martin Heidegger. Heidegger had some Japanese students attending his early lectures in Freiburg i. Br., in the 1920ies. Not only felt these students that they understood Heidegger´s phenomenological approach, in certain ways, better than their German fellows, but also got Heidegger very interested in Eastern cultures of knowledge (or wisdom-teachings) like Daoism and Zen. Although we only have relatively few documents on this special "corner" of East-West dialogues (ref., e.g.: Reinhard May; AH, vol. vii[?]), but we know, e.g., that Heidegger had the "Essays on Zen", written by D.T. Suzuki, standing in his private library. And phenomenology, that is, especially the one done the Heideggerean-style, influenced the later so called Kyôto-School, whose first prominent protagonist was Nishida Kitarô, considerably. Moreover, Heidegger´s "Fundamentalontologie" -- one might, cursorily, characterize it as a mixture between Husserlian academic phenomenology and German mysticism, i.e., namely that one of Meister Eckhart, which can let one sense some "zen-taste", here and there, if one has the right "tuning", so to speak,-- also found its way relatively early (i.e., during the late 1930ies, I think) into France, where it influenced not only the great scholar Maurice Merleau-Ponty ("Phenomenology of Perception"), but also intellectuals like Jean-Paul Sartré, and Albert Camus.
Yes, however there is the deep question of how the Tathāgatagarbha is to be interpreted or understood. If it's understood as simply emptiness, or non-self, then it's not obviously saying anything different.
Wouldn't the concept of self, that which we can think of inevitably be false self (ego)? When I think Buddha's strategy of not-self, I'm reminded of 'Neti Neti', which has a lot of parallel. Do you think consciousness (pure awareness) changes?
Yes, for the Buddha consciousness was always changing along with everything else. See for example this earlier video of mine: th-cam.com/video/NoFF8-rA1zE/w-d-xo.html
But isn't the "inner seer", "pure-awareness", "self-arisen awareness", "awareness as such", "stay with the seer" etc. precisely what Buddhists would consider as "the true self" (aka Buddha-nature and so forth).
The notion of Buddha nature isn't found in the early teachings. And Buddha nature can be understood many ways. If it's understood as non-self, then it is perfectly compatible with the early material, though expressed in a somewhat paradoxical way.
Why would the existence of something permament and everlasting route out the possibility of suffering? And if the self does not exist, then who or what is attaining enlightenment? Why does it matter, if the empty phenomena at some point hold the idea that they are enlightened by reflecting that they are empty? Is the Buddha not rather believing that the self does in fact exist with its essence being emptiness? But if emptiness would be the self, with emptiness giving rise to phenomena or form, than still nothing is changed by the realization that the forms are empty but it would seem that enlightenment and non-enlightenment would be identical.
Deep questions! If suffering comes through craving for permanence, then the finding of permanence might be a route towards the ending of suffering. As for the self, see for example: th-cam.com/video/wUDnPy6ACG4/w-d-xo.html
@@DougsDharma Thank you for your suggestion, I found that video to be thought-provoking. Does the Buddha advocate for finding permance in the realization that the phenomena are non-permanent and empty?
@@Zeus-ub9cc It is very sad that people live their lives under such conditions, but it is not permanent. This regime and whatever evils they do, the people running this, and the people suffering under this are all impermanent. They arise depending on causes, and cease when those causes are no longer present. There is no regime, no matter how strong or evil, that is permanent.
@@swaminic but what about the people who have lived their entire life under a regime like this, for them it is permanent because after death they cease to exist so they, ofcourse cannot feel anything, but till they are alive, their life is completely miserable.
@@Zeus-ub9cc I understand what you are saying and agree with you on those terms. However you are using the word permanent in a different way to the Buddha who also had a different understanding of what happens after death.
What’s the benefit of grabbing a snake the Buddha is referencing? I’m sure there is an obvious cultural understanding of what benefit comes from being able to grasp a snake. Collection of venom for medicine use?
Hi Doug! Are these three kind of emptiness of self encapsulated in the phrase: "Not Mine, Not I, Not Myself"? As you discuss in this video: th-cam.com/video/ew2iBj7OF2g/w-d-xo.html I'm not so deep into the distinctions, that I'm sure that they are the same thing you're talking about.
It's not clear to me that they fit exactly. The first and third seem to be roughly the same, but the second one ("Not I") may be a "doctrine of self" or it may be something a bit more subtle and all-pervading, a kind of emotional response to the world in terms of "I".
I of Doug is emptiness. And emptiness is I of Doug. I of Doug is nonemptiness. And nonemptiness is I of Doug. I of Doug is alpha. And alpha is I of Doug. I of Doug is omega. And omega is I of Doug. When anyone understood then Dharmachakkappavattana sutta digested. I of doug is Tatagata I. That's the trancendenal. Dharmachakkappavattana sutta is the expression of I of doug, Tatagata I. Everything is within Nirvana, I of doug, Tatagata Me. Each 4 holy truth is only I of Doug, in Nirvana. Each 8 fold right path is also I of Doug, in Nirvana.
Buddha rebelled against vedanta in his entire life, people like Sarvapriyananda and his teacher Vevekananda and Shankharacarya were always against Buddha's teaching. They talk about Tibetian Buddhism which is far from Buddha's early teaching. Theravada Buddhist has the record of Authentic Early Buddhist Text. People like sarvapriyananda have destroyed the Gem of Buddha's teaching from its birthplace India. it doesnt make sense to equate buddhist idea of non-self to hindu true self
@@DougsDharma In general, I see many problems similar to all the -- i.m.o. necessary, maybe even unavoidable, -- hermeneutic ones regarding the life and work of Jesus Christ, and the genesis of Christendom (on which YT-channels like MythVision, and Gnostic Informant aired many, i.m.o., interesting, informative, and inspiring talks and discussions). Some of the more concrete problems would be: (1) In academia, the view seems to prevail, today, that we do not have many hard facts on the life and work of the historic Buddha, Gautama Siddharta. Of course, taken as a "person of historical significance" (showing up in a synthesic "Gestalt" between facts and fictions, so to speak), we have "myriads" of lores, and tales, and myth, and so forth, which constitutes at least the pheno-typical base (by functioning as "role-model", and so forth) of the whole "religious stream-system" (H. Küng) of Buddhism, resp. of the Buddhist world, which is "catholic" in the sense that it´s "body-mind", or quasi-organic "system", permeates many layers of our human life-worlds (to use a phenomenological terminus technicus, here, ref.:, e.g., Berger/Luckmann, "Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Wirklichkeit" [sorry, don´t have the exact English title right at hand in the moment]). One of my "classic" references in German language would be the monography "Buddha" by Herbert von Guenther, and of the newer ones, several publications by Michael von Brück. The minimal consensus seems to be: There was a member of the Shakya-clan, who started an apprenticeship in (proto-)Yoga and religio-philosophical studies, and, after having attained some decisive insights -- via deep s a m a d h i as one of his main "techniques" --, began to preach and teach his, i.e., the Gautama Siddharta one´s, own "system" (maybe influenced by the slightly older one of Jainism). From there, the whole movement, -- rather late termed "Buddh[a]ism" in the West, -- started, and unfolded its own dynamics by, among other things, "institutionalizing the charisma", to use a phrase by the early German sociologist Max Weber, first of Gautama Siddharta, and later of the whole, more and more evolving, "Buddhist pantheon" ... (2) The problem of the "self" is a tricky one, indeed. Immanuel Kant, for example, meditated on it, by starting with the elusive grammatical "Ich" (engl.: ´I`). Psychoanalysts, like S. Freud, C.G. Jung, "Gestalt"-psychologists, and experimental psychologists also did some meticulous studies (recently: Vervaeke/Henriques, "The Elusive I" on You Tube), which are at least as insightful as the standard Buddhist ones, if I may say so -- but, of course, there is also always, -- as "intervening variable", -- the one big problem of adequate "translation work" to arrive at, ideally, an adequate mutual understanding... (3) The whole "basket" of trans-/inter-/intra-cultural semantics regarding * soul/non-soul, * self/non-self, * authenticity/in-authenticity, * time and/or causality, * time/non-time, * "vital time-space", * fate, providence, Karma, chance, and/or probability, * reality/non-reality, *chaos/order, * "atomism vs. holism", "straight/middle/crooked" (正中偏), "absolute dynamism vs. absolute stasis", and so forth, hold seemingly endless stuff for studies and discussions inside and outside the Buddhist movement(s)... Thanks for sharing Your thoughts on all these complex topics. The hermeneutic circling surely will go on for some time, I guess... Best regards.
🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂
📙 You can find my new book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
Hello Doug,
what can one do, if one wants to make one single donation?
Wish you all the best.
@@30revolacul03 I have a PayPal link in the show notes!
@@DougsDharma Oh, thank you!
Wow Doug! I think this video summarizes the idea of Non self better than any other I’ve seen. Great information explained directly.
Awesome, thank you!
As usual , a clear and helpful talk. One thought though. All conditioned things are seen as impermanent and dukkha, but all dhammas as non-self
Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma. It is not impermanent or dukkha but is still non-self. I would not see it as permanent in time but beyond time. That no permanent self or possession can be found is not equivalent to there not being anything that is permanent, in sense of timeless. Nibbana has nothing about 'it' that can support sense of 'I am', which would be needed for an essential, permanent self. On this see Mahanidana Sutta at DN.Ii.66-68.
I hope your burnt study is back up and running. It reminds us that anything impermanent is 'on fire'...
Best wishes, Peter Harvey
Thanks Peter, of course you are right about nibbāna being non-self. I hope I didn't give the impression otherwise! And yes, I suppose beyond time is right, though I hesitate to go there simply because I don't know how to conceive of such a thing unless it is some sort of abstractum, which I don't think it is. As for the study, it's on its way, in the rental apartment for now. And thanks so much for watching and commenting. 🙏
@@DougsDharma Hi Doug, my point was not that you were overlooking that nibbana is non-self. It was more that you could be seen as implying that the critique of taking anything as a permanent self
... that there is not anything at all that is permanent/beyond time.
@@peterharvey845 I think it's a question as to whether nibbāna can be thought of as literally permanent or beyond time. Maybe so, maybe not. This seems to get into those "unanswered questions" ...
@@DougsDharma The undetermined questions you allude to are on an enlightened person after death. That is a different issue to that of *nibbana*, the unconditioned being beyond time
Patissmbhidamagga II 241-2 sees nibbana as not impermanent. See eg my The Selfless Mind p.51
Up until now I didnt quite know how to articulate the fact that Ive been looking for something to cling to or hold on to . but I didnt know that what I was looking for I didnt know i was looking for a constant . i thought i was looking for an object or a concept ...i just knew something's missing; it was the fact that I can't get clear constant view of this realization of this thing that never changes . and this dreadful feeling of disconnection or fragmentation heart brokeness that I feel might come from knowing I'm utterly deluded
It's something we all struggle with, so join the club!
@@DougsDharmalol thanks
I've never actually commented on your channel, even though I've watched many of your videos. I really appreciate all the great work you do, Thx! BTW, I'm sorry about your house fire and I hope the repairs are proceeding well. All the best
Thanks so much Craig, that's very kind of you to say. As for the work on the house, it's proceeding very slowly and likely will be a year or so before it's all done.
@@DougsDharma Sorry, quite a wait. I wish you patience and equanimity through it all. Best
Yeah, he’s one of the good guys is Doug.
It should be noted that all non-Theravada traditions of Buddhism and some Theravada traditions (Thai forest tradition, Dhammakaya, and some small Thai and Burmese traditions) have a teaching of a true self, a permanent self. And this was also the view of most of early Buddhists, ie the Mahasamghika branch. Post-Buddha names for it include the storehouse consciousness (alaya vijnana), root consciousness (mula vijnana), and Buddha-nature (Buddha-element, buddhadhatu, or Tathagata essence, tathagatagarbha), but it has roots in Pali Suttas. In the Suttas Buddha says that the five aggregates are the burden, but the person (puggala) is the burden-bearer (bhara-hara). He also says that a self-doer (atttakari) exists, and talks about the unseen consciousness (anidassana vinnana) and the luminous mind (pabhassara citta) which are beyond the aggregates and ayatanas.
Yes, I've discussed some of this in past videos. What is clear is that the Buddha never claimed there was "no self"; he had a subtle yet in some aspects robust notion of a conventional, changing self involved in action, practice, and karma.
In the various schools of Indian Buddhism, pre-Mahayana and Mahayana, the acceptance of a permanent Self is very rare. Some versions of the Tathagata-garbha have it, eg in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, and the Pudgalavadins had sa subtle person-self idea. The alaya-vijnana is still non-Self.
Pabhassara citta, or radiant mind is not beyond the aggregates. Taking it as a permanent self would be a block to deepening meditative insight.
Likewise with anidassana vinnana.
@@peterharvey845 Yes exactly so, thanks for the clarification.
Good to have you back.
Thanks Dread!
Clear as a mountain lake
Thank you
🙏😊
I think that if I am drawn to correct the understanding of another then I'm holding the "I'm right and you're wrong" view, no matter how gently I try to "correct". I think seeking to comprehend the other's understanding and the reasons for it and then expressing how my understanding is different -- and then leaving it at that -- is the more equanimous approach.
Yes, certainly that can be a good strategy.
Sadhu sadhu
Thank you!
Dough - very happy and appreciative to see you coming in addressing this repeated theme: emptiness that to my a little surprise you began to look into the commentarial literature in which many modern scholars would not look upon as sources of early Buddhism. In my understanding of the core teaching of the Buddha, as long as latent remnants of craving and clinging to anything still exists, there will be manifestation in one way or another of the possession, doctrine and/or view of "Self". "Self", "I", "mine" is basically the most extrinsic as well as intrinsic expression of craving and clinging which is the root source of the whole mass of suffering according to the second Noble Truth. Thanks for making such a fascinating video!
Yes, you're very welcome, Hendrick! I usually don't spend a lot of effort on the commentarial material, but sometimes it seems to provide some illumination that makes it worth mentioning, along with the caveat that it may not necessarily represent the earliest ideas.
@@pauloTARSO-sb3gl I don't think the Buddha ever talks about a transcendental Self like this, not in early texts for sure. On contrary, in many signature early discourses, it is the construction or identification of a metaphysical Self that is the root of suffering as beings' latent defilements, ignorance, craving and clinging reside. Check out MN1 Mulapariyaya sutta and DN1 Brahmajala sutta.
One thing of practical value in our practice is: the perception or clinging to any form of self is definitely a hindrance to enlightenment.
Interestingly glimpses of the end of our journey, which cannot be considered as self, as i recall are as follows
1) suttas describing Nibbana as consciousness without surface (no contact point), without limit, radiant all around etc sutta also describes original citta as radiant (differentiated from pure citta).
2) Ajaan Mun in Ballard of liberation said there is nothing in the something, yet there is something in the nothing, but then there is nothing.
3). Other accomplished masters seem to say what remain is the pure citta, awareness without self or reaction. Cheers.
Thanks for that, Galaxymetta.
I like your last bit about using views as methods…reminds me of your video from a while back about how getting rid of views is not the point of the Buddhist path, but rather to have views that will take us where we need to go.
Great, thanks for the comment Charlie! 🙏
Much Appreciated Doug .
My pleasure!
Emptiness of
• posessions,
• a (doctrine of) self,
• views.
Easy to understand, hard to practice - especially when facing war times like these...
May you all be well! 🧡 Thanks, Doug, for another brilliant video! 🙏
My pleasure! Glad to be back. 🙏😊
Well said, Doug. Thank you.
Thanks for watching and commenting, John!
All of this feels helpful but also completely beside the point, words are just not enough.
Yes, perhaps so, though when it comes to teaching, words are nearly all we have.
Upanishadic saints and yogis weren't trying to find something permanent to cling to or own, but rather the infinite all-permeating brahman that is both reality experienced and infinitely beyond it. It is form, formless, and neither; beginningless, endless, whole, and yet infinitely capable of fragmentation. It is the infinite self, infinite existence, and requires all possibilities in order to maintain infinitude (which includes suffering and so on). From my research it really isn't about attaching to God/Brahman/Self, it isn't about Self being a "thing", it is about the experiencer, the one who is aware, is beyond all these "things" like body, mind, emotion, sensation, idea, memory, belief, and is actually one with Brahman, the infinite reality. The infinite reality has always been, it always will be, it is beyond form, and this is what the self (the one viewing) is: it is the infinite.
Lovely!
Thank you for this video. Across all beliefs and spectrums of faith respect I feel is so vital and love is my eternal embodiment in various ways personally.
Well said!
Great video. Really helpful. This may be a stretch, but the poet John Keats' odes, "Ode on a Grecian Urn" and "Ode to a Nightingale" seem almost Buddhist based on a rereading - a desire for permanence of self and an understanding that it is impossible.
That's right John, thanks!
I had a dream onetime: A Chief or Shaman came to me and said “We are one with the universe, be apart of all living things “
It has been my central feeling about life ever since.☸️😉
Truth can not be put into words, and that’s the truth. However, the closest I've ever heard was Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj who said when asked “What is self?” His response was “That one is, is certain. What one is, not so much. One is the unblemished potential.”
"Unblemished potential" wow that's pretty good.
Interesting! 🙂
Thank you!
You're welcome Mende!
The self that I currently know, while changing with experience, and the passage of time, has a continuity of identity. In that I am not the same person who was born into this world/construct, but there is a sense that some core consciousness has flowed through all of the changes. It would seem possible that that core consciousness could be eternal, without being unchanging. Enlightenment might put an end to that, or simply keep the consciousness from being drawn back into the physical
Sure. On the Buddha's understanding though, the consciousness we exhibit is itself always changing, and there is no core to consciousness anymore than there is a core to our physicality. See for example: th-cam.com/video/NoFF8-rA1zE/w-d-xo.html
@@DougsDharma did he not remember the man he was pre enlightenment? 😉
@@DougsDharma What about Henri Bergson´s intuitive insights concerning some higher-order unity between "spatialized time" and "durée"?
the existence of the Eternal Self(Atman), is mentioned in the Mahayana mahaparinirvana sutra.
Self or no-self, the way is in :)❤️
Yes there are some important differences between Buddhist schools, however it's also a question of how these are interpreted.
Ur a good man😊.
Thank you,.
very nice!
Thanks for this Doug. The idea of the self has a long history in western philosophy so it can be confusing to understand what the Buddha meant by non self. IMO the Buddha was being quite specific about the aspects of self that are illusory. The self in this sense seems to be first person pronoun statements - "this is mine, this I am, this is my self" when these statements concern the 5 aggregates of form, feeling, perception, constucted concepts and conciousness.
It would not mean that the Buddha would necessarily disagree, at least on this basis, with for example, Jung, who discusses the development of the consciousness of self, on the basis that such a self does not exist.
The problem is perhaps we don't have any way of discussing our experience other than by using I statements and so it is therefore an easy trap to fall into, to believe that this grammatical convenience is a concrete reality. But I don't think the Buddha intended us to understand that our experiences in the body are illusory per se.
Oh for sure, the Buddha wasn't saying that all our experiences were illusory, only that they were often misleading.
Thank you.
🙏😊
Hi Doug. I was wondering, why does the Buddha only equate an idea of a permanent self with the idea of no sorrow, lamentation and pain, in other words, no suffering? Is it not possible for example to have an idea of a permanent self, that we still haven't fully understood yet, but which doesn't necessarily give rise to bliss and no suffering. I mean you can still have an idea of a permanent self and suffering at the same time. Why would these two things necessarily be connected according to the Buddha? I know the Buddha would say that everything decays, but let's say you have a permanent self in a metaphysical sense, that is not clearly visible to us, because we see that everything changes, but still have suffering. Would that not be possible if we are open minded to other philosophical views? What is your opinion on that from a buddhist standpoint?
It's a great question, the concept of a permanent self that is a refuge of bliss comes from the surrounding culture, in particular probably the early Upaniṣadic and Jain thinkers. You will sometimes hear the phrase "Being, consciousness, bliss" (Sat, chit, ananda) in some Hindu teachings. These derive from the Upaniṣadic seers.
Actually there's lot of counter and re counter analysis debates regarding this topic which advaita vedanta took over throughout India during 8th century from time of which it became main school pushing back Buddhist and jain schools. Anyways as you know this things are interpreted differently in vedanta like self, aatman, questions of ignorance, sorrows I think you Going deep into advaita vedanta will help you understand what's difference between interpretation of upanishadic concepts between Buddhism and Vedanta.
I suggest you to interact with swami sarvapriyananda of ramakrishna mission which would be a great discussion as he's also expert in Tibetan Buddhism
Buddha rebelled against vedanta in his entire life, people like Sarvapriyananda and his teacher Vevekananda and Shankharacarya were always against Buddha's teaching. He talks about Tibetian Buddhist which is far from Buddha's early teaching. Theravada Buddhist has the record of Authentic Early Buddhist Text. People like sarvapriyananda have destroyed the Gem of Buddha's teaching from its birthplace India. it doesnt make sense to equate buddhist idea of non-self to hindu true self
@@Tridib_Tinkel So does buddhism make sense to you ?
@@castelessaastik4655 yes it does
Do you have a video that recommends what kind of meditation to pursue and how to learn it?
Thanks.
I have a large number of videos on meditation practices and techniques, but as to which kind to pursue, that depends on the person. I wouldn't want to make blanket recommendations, except perhaps to start with breathing meditation because it's relatively simple and easy to understand.
Self is the story we tell ourselves about how we fit into the world and society. It cannot be otherwise.
There is no such thing as a transcendent self, but if there was, it wouldn't matter, because the transcendent is not accessible to us. There is no mechanism by which our mind - the patterns in the brain, can transcend our biological homeostasis.
I was wondering, after watching Doug's very informative video, if one could consider the Mindstream (citta-santāna) as a permanent self, as this is what continues after death, so is immune to death - or is deathless and seems permanent. The Mindstream is not complete, as there is always another life experience that is added on, but on reaching enlightenment, it is complete. So the "thread" that holds these life experiences together, whatever it is, would be the Permanent Self! What do you think about this?
Good question. I would imagine that the "mindstream" would only be a conventional way to discuss the ever-changing, causally conditioned arising of various mental and physical states one after the other. It's not a separate "thing" but rather a conceptual category. As well, the famous "unanswered question" as to what happens to the arahant after death would disallow us from saying anything in particular about it once an arahant dies.
@@DougsDharma Hi Doug thanks! One wonders how the mechanics of this works as at some point the person's individual Karma (wherever and whatever it is) interacts with the person's mindstream, to decide what lifeform the person will be born into in the next life! So the mindstream must be that person's life experiences and not any other person's! Seems like a self to me! haha! There are lots of unanswered questions here! :)
@@kgrandchamp Yes indeed, I've discussed a number of these issues in videos in my playlist about self and non-self, but at the end of the day the notion of karma over lifetimes doesn't fit perfectly with this idea of non-self IMO. So we get ideas like the bhavaṅga, the ālaya-vijñāna, etc.
Thanks for the clear and concise exposition, Doug. As I understand it, the brahmanic idea of 'puruṣa' (personhood) strongly influenced the development of early Mahayana thought ... perhaps illustrated by the emerging idea of Buddhakaya ... would you apply this to the simile of the 'raft' or something else? Thanks
How do you mean? Though the Buddha was quite clear in that simile that we should not cling to our views, that's not to say he had no views. It's simply to say that he didn't identify with them, nor was he perturbed when others disagreed with him or berated him for his views. That sort of thing. 🙂
So difficult to figure, what was meant from 2500 years ago
Sure, we do our best with the evidence. But there are no guarantees, even with figuring out someone who's right there in front of us! 🙂
🙏
🙏😊
15:42 Whoa there! Hahaha
😀
Doug, have you done any videos involving the Buddha's view on art and artists? Being that I am an artist, I would like to see if he has anything positive to say about art and creativity - or if the Buddha sees no use for it.
Interested in the same thing, i found a bit of discussion on it on a stackexchange page I recommend looking up. I searched "art and right livelihood" or something. It may not be seen as positive.
I did a video awhile back on Buddhist art where I got into some of that: th-cam.com/video/ydYLXYvz6oA/w-d-xo.html
As far as I know, Buddha said that arts (Including plays, movies and almost all entertainment today) generally create delusions for people. making people be infatuated with them and neglect doing fruitful works. In one Sutta, it said, the dancers would go to hell for creating delusions for people.
In my interpretation, if the arts create the path to the end of delusions, greed, and hatred, Buddha would praise the arts. For example, if you are a writer and you create a story that teaches the readers the right morality lesson, ur arts would be considered good and lead u to heavens and happiness. But if your arts make people be infatuated with them, and neglect doing fruitful works, you would be creating delusions, temporary, deceptive sensual pleasures for the people to be infatuated with, and it will lead u to hells and suffering.
Therefore, to conclude, I think arts, in general, are considered a bad thing according to Buddha as they create delusions. Though, they are some exceptions like the example I used. In the end, whether arts are good or bad, it is depending on the intentions of the artists creating the arts and the results that the arts cause.
I perceive me just like an onion. Each layer of the onion is not true me. Each layer is the suffer I need to face and peel it with the tear from the untrue me onion layer. I just let go the layer of untrue me. I hope I can one day face the true me which sits on the center of the onion root which is a very tiny green part in the deep inside of onion. I know I can not meet the true me in this life. I am looking forward finding the true self in the next many lives. Looking forward is a joy. English is not my primary language. Hope what I wrote makes sense to person who read it. Empty me is the best way to learn empathy and compassion.
For sure, very well said and understandable Sing Tsai! Maybe you will keep peeling back that onion and find there is no "true self" at the center, only layers after layers!
Something I’ve been wondering is how Buddhism interacts with Existentialism, and whether they are compatible? From what I know of both, they would seem to be. I could be mistaken.
Hard to say, I think it would depend on the kind of existentialism and the kind of Buddhism. It's been a very long time since I studied existentialist philosophy so I'm not really sure.
I see some connecting threads via the person of Martin Heidegger.
Heidegger had some Japanese students attending his early lectures in Freiburg i. Br., in the 1920ies. Not only felt these students that they understood Heidegger´s phenomenological approach, in certain ways, better than their German fellows, but also got Heidegger very interested in Eastern cultures of knowledge (or wisdom-teachings) like Daoism and Zen. Although we only have relatively few documents on this special "corner" of East-West dialogues (ref., e.g.: Reinhard May; AH, vol. vii[?]), but we know, e.g., that Heidegger had the "Essays on Zen", written by D.T. Suzuki, standing in his private library. And phenomenology, that is, especially the one done the Heideggerean-style, influenced the later so called Kyôto-School, whose first prominent protagonist was Nishida Kitarô, considerably.
Moreover, Heidegger´s "Fundamentalontologie" -- one might, cursorily, characterize it as a mixture between Husserlian academic phenomenology and German mysticism, i.e., namely that one of Meister Eckhart, which can let one sense some "zen-taste", here and there, if one has the right "tuning", so to speak,-- also found its way relatively early (i.e., during the late 1930ies, I think) into France, where it influenced not only the great scholar Maurice Merleau-Ponty ("Phenomenology of Perception"), but also intellectuals like Jean-Paul Sartré, and Albert Camus.
@@gunterappoldt3037 Absolutely fascinating! Thank you for this thorough and wonderful response. More to add to my “need to read” pile hahaha
@@graysonjd5624 Welcome! Thanks!
Oh Bhagavan, The Atma, (sing.), has arrived at three doorstep.. the veil , or net of Brahma, or indra, removed...
Doesn’t Mahayana Buddhism consider the tathagatagarbha as a type of self?
Yes, however there is the deep question of how the Tathāgatagarbha is to be interpreted or understood. If it's understood as simply emptiness, or non-self, then it's not obviously saying anything different.
How are you doing?
Doing OK, thanks!
Wouldn't the concept of self, that which we can think of inevitably be false self (ego)? When I think Buddha's strategy of not-self, I'm reminded of 'Neti Neti', which has a lot of parallel. Do you think consciousness (pure awareness) changes?
Yes, for the Buddha consciousness was always changing along with everything else. See for example this earlier video of mine: th-cam.com/video/NoFF8-rA1zE/w-d-xo.html
@@DougsDharma thanks Doug!
Isn’t Nibbana described as unconditioned and unchanging? Why isn’t that the self?
See this past video on the unconditioned: th-cam.com/video/-Wz3N5IAGDM/w-d-xo.html
But isn't the "inner seer", "pure-awareness", "self-arisen awareness", "awareness as such", "stay with the seer" etc. precisely what Buddhists would consider as "the true self" (aka Buddha-nature and so forth).
The notion of Buddha nature isn't found in the early teachings. And Buddha nature can be understood many ways. If it's understood as non-self, then it is perfectly compatible with the early material, though expressed in a somewhat paradoxical way.
Why would the existence of something permament and everlasting route out the possibility of suffering? And if the self does not exist, then who or what is attaining enlightenment? Why does it matter, if the empty phenomena at some point hold the idea that they are enlightened by reflecting that they are empty? Is the Buddha not rather believing that the self does in fact exist with its essence being emptiness? But if emptiness would be the self, with emptiness giving rise to phenomena or form, than still nothing is changed by the realization that the forms are empty but it would seem that enlightenment and non-enlightenment would be identical.
Deep questions! If suffering comes through craving for permanence, then the finding of permanence might be a route towards the ending of suffering. As for the self, see for example: th-cam.com/video/wUDnPy6ACG4/w-d-xo.html
@@DougsDharma Thank you for your suggestion, I found that video to be thought-provoking. Does the Buddha advocate for finding permance in the realization that the phenomena are non-permanent and empty?
@@TheBlackYoshi100 watch Swami sarvapriyanand Advait vedanta
What if there is something permanent but that thing is sorrowful, what will buddha say to that ?
Well I don't think he would be so interested in the hypothetical. He would probably ask, "What is this thing? Show it to me."
@@DougsDharma One example could be the life of people who have lived their entire life under a cruel and tyrannical regime, ex- people living in DPRK
@@Zeus-ub9cc It is very sad that people live their lives under such conditions, but it is not permanent. This regime and whatever evils they do, the people running this, and the people suffering under this are all impermanent. They arise depending on causes, and cease when those causes are no longer present. There is no regime, no matter how strong or evil, that is permanent.
@@swaminic but what about the people who have lived their entire life under a regime like this, for them it is permanent because after death they cease to exist so they, ofcourse cannot feel anything, but till they are alive, their life is completely miserable.
@@Zeus-ub9cc I understand what you are saying and agree with you on those terms. However you are using the word permanent in a different way to the Buddha who also had a different understanding of what happens after death.
What’s the benefit of grabbing a snake the Buddha is referencing? I’m sure there is an obvious cultural understanding of what benefit comes from being able to grasp a snake. Collection of venom for medicine use?
Great question! I'm not sure. Maybe collection of venom, or maybe for use in some sort of training or ritual? That would be interesting to know.
Hi Doug! Are these three kind of emptiness of self encapsulated in the phrase: "Not Mine, Not I, Not Myself"?
As you discuss in this video: th-cam.com/video/ew2iBj7OF2g/w-d-xo.html
I'm not so deep into the distinctions, that I'm sure that they are the same thing you're talking about.
It's not clear to me that they fit exactly. The first and third seem to be roughly the same, but the second one ("Not I") may be a "doctrine of self" or it may be something a bit more subtle and all-pervading, a kind of emotional response to the world in terms of "I".
I of Doug is emptiness. And emptiness is I of Doug.
I of Doug is nonemptiness. And nonemptiness is I of Doug.
I of Doug is alpha. And alpha is I of Doug.
I of Doug is omega. And omega is I of Doug.
When anyone understood then Dharmachakkappavattana sutta digested.
I of doug is Tatagata I.
That's the trancendenal.
Dharmachakkappavattana sutta is the expression of I of doug, Tatagata I.
Everything is within Nirvana, I of doug, Tatagata Me.
Each 4 holy truth is only I of Doug, in Nirvana.
Each 8 fold right path is also I of Doug, in Nirvana.
Buddha rebelled against vedanta in his entire life, people like Sarvapriyananda and his teacher Vevekananda and Shankharacarya were always against Buddha's teaching. They talk about Tibetian Buddhism which is far from Buddha's early teaching. Theravada Buddhist has the record of Authentic Early Buddhist Text. People like sarvapriyananda have destroyed the Gem of Buddha's teaching from its birthplace India. it doesnt make sense to equate buddhist idea of non-self to hindu true self
Seriously?
How do you mean?
@@DougsDharma In general, I see many problems similar to all the -- i.m.o. necessary, maybe even unavoidable, -- hermeneutic ones regarding the life and work of Jesus Christ, and the genesis of Christendom (on which YT-channels like MythVision, and Gnostic Informant aired many, i.m.o., interesting, informative, and inspiring talks and discussions).
Some of the more concrete problems would be:
(1) In academia, the view seems to prevail, today, that we do not have many hard facts on the life and work of the historic Buddha, Gautama Siddharta. Of course, taken as a "person of historical significance" (showing up in a synthesic "Gestalt" between facts and fictions, so to speak), we have "myriads" of lores, and tales, and myth, and so forth, which constitutes at least the pheno-typical base (by functioning as "role-model", and so forth) of the whole "religious stream-system" (H. Küng) of Buddhism, resp. of the Buddhist world, which is "catholic" in the sense that it´s "body-mind", or quasi-organic "system", permeates many layers of our human life-worlds (to use a phenomenological terminus technicus, here, ref.:, e.g., Berger/Luckmann, "Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Wirklichkeit" [sorry, don´t have the exact English title right at hand in the moment]). One of my "classic" references in German language would be the monography "Buddha" by Herbert von Guenther, and of the newer ones, several publications by Michael von Brück. The minimal consensus seems to be: There was a member of the Shakya-clan, who started an apprenticeship in (proto-)Yoga and religio-philosophical studies, and, after having attained some decisive insights -- via deep s a m a d h i as one of his main "techniques" --, began to preach and teach his, i.e., the Gautama Siddharta one´s, own "system" (maybe influenced by the slightly older one of Jainism). From there, the whole movement, -- rather late termed "Buddh[a]ism" in the West, -- started, and unfolded its own dynamics by, among other things, "institutionalizing the charisma", to use a phrase by the early German sociologist Max Weber, first of Gautama Siddharta, and later of the whole, more and more evolving, "Buddhist pantheon" ...
(2) The problem of the "self" is a tricky one, indeed. Immanuel Kant, for example, meditated on it, by starting with the elusive grammatical "Ich" (engl.: ´I`). Psychoanalysts, like S. Freud, C.G. Jung, "Gestalt"-psychologists, and experimental psychologists also did some meticulous studies (recently: Vervaeke/Henriques, "The Elusive I" on You Tube), which are at least as insightful as the standard Buddhist ones, if I may say so -- but, of course, there is also always, -- as "intervening variable", -- the one big problem of adequate "translation work" to arrive at, ideally, an adequate mutual understanding...
(3) The whole "basket" of trans-/inter-/intra-cultural semantics regarding * soul/non-soul, * self/non-self, * authenticity/in-authenticity, * time and/or causality, * time/non-time, * "vital time-space", * fate, providence, Karma, chance, and/or probability, * reality/non-reality, *chaos/order, * "atomism vs. holism", "straight/middle/crooked" (正中偏), "absolute dynamism vs. absolute stasis", and so forth, hold seemingly endless stuff for studies and discussions inside and outside the Buddhist movement(s)...
Thanks for sharing Your thoughts on all these complex topics. The hermeneutic circling surely will go on for some time, I guess... Best regards.
disagreeable ESFJ with developed Ne
There is nothing.
Then why are you writing?
@@DougsDharma for the weal of the world!