🧡 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 book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
This is so close to how i have been conceptualising my focus on Non-Self during my Meditations. The way i visualise/conceptualise it is through the following, while repeating that Mantra (Not I, Not Mine, Not Myself): Not I: I am not my Social Status (my own, or another’s conceited perception of it), such as my job, and whether or not it is considered in high or low esteem by others - which i also find is a deeply rooted, subtlety emotional attachment - like the famous attachment to “Praise or Blame”. Not Mine: I am not my Body, or any of my possessions. Basically as it sounds, an attachment to physically tangible forms. Not Myself: I am not my Views. An attachment to the various intellectual views and concepts which one is liable to become attached to as a vital and necessarily “indispensable” part of one’s “self” - leading to dogmatic and rigid thinking. In general, i typically tend to focus on this type of Meditation as an antidote; when feelings of Shame may threaten to arise within me - which i consider to be a type of “Disgust” reaction towards oneself (A form of self directed Ill-Will/Hatred) - as a consequence of one’s ignorance about the impermanent nature of impure actions/unpleasant qualities which one may have unwittingly associated with themselves on a permanent basis. Such a practice of repeating the Mantra in my head, and focusing on each of these three aspects of the Self illusion/delusion, helps me to dispel these feelings of Self loathing - or even pride for that matter. Thats just my experience, would love to know if anyone has experienced anything similar? Thanks.
Thanks for this. I really think the up-rootting and un-packing of individuality is a really enlightening part of Buddhism and being aware. Although, it always makes me start pondering collectivity and whether collectivity is the 'real reality' rather then a perceived sense of self.
This is one of my totally favorite topics! Gets right at the heart of matters and the great mysteries of existence and conscious awareness. And again, it is just so terrific how you actually know the literature and can discuss earliest sources. I currently find it helpful to distinguish between "just awareness" and the "objects of awareness" and include among those the experience of having thoughts, feelings, sensations and perceptions that we usually consider to be the "self". I _really_ like the story of the elderly monk and the analogy of the sense of an "I" being like a lingering scent of a flower. I'll check out the Khemaka video. Thanks!
@@dharma8127 Hello! Didn't really understand the question from this translation: "As a voice, he plays consciousness to see objects of consciousness? A conscience would be a peace to tranquility?"
@@dharma8127 Ha! That is where it gets really tricky and language fails! Rupert Spira seems to do a terrific job with this as _practice_ rather than the more academic information found on Doug's Dharma. He has lot of short videos where he leads people through their own experience of being "aware of being aware" and apprehending that as distinct from the experience of having "thoughts, feelings, sensations and perceptions" that create the false egoic self in which "Just Awareness" gets entangled. It ends up being a both/and situation... two sides of the same coin. At first this is only intellectual realization, but with practice one's actual self-identity becomes more in line with reality, obviously with the goal of becoming an arhat. He's really helped me grow and move forward in all this. Check him out! Very cool!
Thank you for this discussion. I have been presenting this to meditation students for the last few weeks, your presentation is most useful in underlining the teachings on surrendering or abandoning Self View recognising the Fetters and in not going insane in finding alternative ways to express oneself for simple terms based on social conventions or the limitations of language. People can wrap themselves up in knots trying to avoid saying "I want a drink of water" "I think it's about to rain" or "I am a Buddhist" by trying to abandon a Self View.
The subjective mind suffers. The objective mind doesn’t suffer. “I am” is subjective thinking. “I am not” is objective thinking. Anything we identify with creates a state of subjective mind. This comment comes from my direct experience of extreme suffering and contemplation of its cause. Doug’s analysis of Buddhist teachings has been and still is of great help and a guiding light. Thank you Doug. Respect and kindness 🙏🏼
Thank you Doug for the insightful enquiry based discussing talk. " I am not THIS ( the 5 khandas) & THIS ( personality based self construct - sakkayadithi) is not my self". Thank you
hi Doug, this is a very well done, thought-out and clear video! I found the explanation of it being deeper than a conceptual understanding of non-self to be pretty interesting and make a lot of sense. Something to add on too is that the conventionality of language in terms of getting rid of self view, or beliefs, or enlightenment and such. There is no such thing as self-view, a belief, or even enlightenment, these are mere conventional terms. There is no object, self-view to get rid of, but rather, it is more of a process that arises due to causes and conditions, whereas a conceptual belief in non-self is moreso being able to find these words more suiting to describing that which one has perceived. Self-view isn't always happening, but I believe in meditation the goal is to recognize the cause and condition that lead self-view to arise, and notice it for what it is, a temporary impermanent part of the world that has arisen due to causes and conditions and that will also secede. Like you said, it is deeper than being able to conceptually think "I don't believe in myself", well who is doing the believing?!
Non-self as not self sourced reveals the Conditions arising causes and effects (the many actions giving the illusion of the 'one' or self) suffering scenario as a past to present to future self-promoted suffering instances.
This is a video i will be saving to my “Meditation Theory” Playlist 😉. What an excellent summary of such a complex and integral part of practice. Thanks Doug 🙏.
I like what the Buddha said after the enlightenment that started with "anekajatisamsaram sandhavissam anibbisam ... " I have heard something about " pabhassara citta", the illuminous mind; some said this is our original citta. Then I have tried to understand Paṭiccasamuppada, the dependent origination. I heard that it is very important that one understand "phassa", the contact part; one of the keys is to be aware of phassa. I imagine that is the Door. 🤔
The question of "self" never ceases to be among the most fascinating and puzzling topic. In my understanding, the Buddha's various discussions of "self" and non-self" sheds more light on "who and what am I" than any other philosophies or religions We may by now have a good understanding of what "self" is not. However, still we don't really have a crystal clear picture of what "self" is. I constantly find that, the more I think I understand the Buddha's teachings, the more puzzled and bewildered I get. In the case of the five aggregates, doesn't it apply only to the realm of sentient living beings? What about living beings in the realms of non-sentiency and formless? Do living beings in these other two realms have less than five aggregates? Is it easier to understand "self" in their states of being? Could we gain a better understanding of what "self" is from observing beings in these other realms?
@@DougsDharma I just wonder if individuals in the realm of formless living beings lack some of the five aggregates such as the body. They thus presumably lack sensory organs to interact with the surroundings. If that's the case, will they also lack thinking and action aggregates? That will leave them with just consciousness.
Good Stuff! In my limited experience , it is not about believing in something or disbelieving in something. It's not that we exist in some part or form after death, or that we do not exist in some form after death. There is no "I" and not no "I". Lastly there are no "different levels" or not no different levels. IMO this is pointing to the experience or realization or seeing that which is beyond all concepts, or form, but if one thinks he/she is seeing beyond all forms or concepts, they are still stuck in form and concept. It is kind of like getting a big surprise that you could never imagine because the "surprise" transcends surprises along with imagination.
I think the main issue is that no matter how the non-self is explained in words, ultimately there are just directions and we will only know about it once we have experienced it or catch a glimpse of it either in our practice or a spontaneous moment of sudden insight
Hey Doug, something I've been wondering about for a while is the buddhist view on personality. While I understand that many things about a human are impermanent, it seems as though there is a consist personality/traits that continue throughout the life of a person e.g. an introvert or extroverted person. Do you have any insights on this?
Yes I’ve done a couple of videos about this general topic. Check out my playlist: Self and Non-self in Buddhism th-cam.com/play/PL0akoU_OszRjA9n0-U24ZCpfEQVFxeGz2.html
If it had been in the Heart Sutra, it would probably have read, "I am not this, I am not not this." From my inclinations, what he talks about using the five aggregates here, and not being this, would be also the distinction between pravrtti-sukha and (adi-) mahasukha, ordinary sukha, and primordial sukha, with sukha here being contraposed with dukkha. (five aggregates) is not mine (not part of), I am not this (not identical to), -- this is not my self (?), the last phrase introduces "self", unless you equate it with "I". Or it equates with the five aggregates. At least so it would seem.
Hello Doug! Thank you for making this video. As far as non-self goes, there are still a few questions i have. Do you by chance know if there is any evidence in the Buddhas early teachings to suggest that Buddha understood how you ARE everything outside of your skin? That you ARE the universe? If so could you provide that evidence? Maybe even make a video on this? I understand that later schools of Buddhism have developed which have interpreted the Buddhas early teachings this way. There is a video called “Alan Watts lectures | The Void” by a youtuber named “Raving Electron” where this is explained thoroughly. But as far as im aware, the Buddha himself only taught that you are the brain/body as the 5 aggregates and revealed the paradoxical & therefore illusory nature of our self as this form or these 5 aggregates. But i have yet to discover evidence to suggest that he understood how you ARE everything beyond form or outside of your brain/body; the 5 aggregates. Please please please get back to me on this! I look forward to deepening my understanding of non-self thanks to you! Much love & thanks again 🙏
Yes the Buddha explicitly rejected the claim that you are identical with everything or with the whole universe. See for example my video on non-dualism: th-cam.com/video/43v6lLweukg/w-d-xo.html
Some people who are experts in reading and translating ancient Pali claim that the Buddha never taught the doctrine of no Atman. They claim that this doctrine of no Atman arose a few hundred years after the Buddha passed.
Hi Doug, have you read the sutta 'a little spell of emptiness'? It's a fairly simple read but the way emptiness is described seems different to the notion of 'empty of self' or 'empty of inherent existence' which is how I understand emptiness. I'd like to see your take on this sutta; perhaps you could put it in context for me at least.
I'm not sure which sutta you're talking about. If you mean the Shorter Discourse on Emptiness, I did a video on that: th-cam.com/video/XbHcqUnWBlc/w-d-xo.html
Advaita Vedanta says dissolving the ego will give realisation to the True Self. The ego will dissolve into Universal Self. Nagarjuna said that everything is temporary since everything is made of building blocks but Advaitins put SELF as the smallest building blocks of the Universe. Is there any counter logic against this? And did this concept existed during Buddha's time?
Buddhists have the concept of non self, shunyata etc.. Advaita agrees with it but upto a certain extent. Advaita's reply to that is: No-self is known to whom? Emptiness is known by what ?
@BarbarraBay you need to broaden your mind and open your heart a lot to even understand the full range and breadth of emptiness my dear Karen, emptiness is a lot more than simply no self. Emptiness is the way things actually are meaning things don't have an independent existence of their own, try reading nagarjuna and his tetrelemma etc.. Ultimately emptiness is also not empty because it is dependant upon the precursor which is the perceiving entity, without you there is no emptiness. You come first then comes the concept of emptiness.
This one say, Doug's I is. Dharmachakkasutta say all about Tathagatha I. Count down the letter I in Dharmachakka sutta. Doug's real I is, Tathagatha I, Dharmabody I, Nirvana I. Aggregate is not real self, not Doug's and not real self of Doug. So Doug can refuge to Doug's pure I, Nirvana I. Without nirvana I, no Buddha can enlighten! Doug, you don't know your pure I now. Pure I is all transcedent. Open! When opened, what happen? HA@ HA@ HA@
🧡 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 book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
This is so close to how i have been conceptualising my focus on Non-Self during my Meditations. The way i visualise/conceptualise it is through the following, while repeating that Mantra (Not I, Not Mine, Not Myself):
Not I:
I am not my Social Status (my own, or another’s conceited perception of it), such as my job, and whether or not it is considered in high or low esteem by others - which i also find is a deeply rooted, subtlety emotional attachment - like the famous attachment to “Praise or Blame”.
Not Mine:
I am not my Body, or any of my possessions. Basically as it sounds, an attachment to physically tangible forms.
Not Myself:
I am not my Views. An attachment to the various intellectual views and concepts which one is liable to become attached to as a vital and necessarily “indispensable” part of one’s “self” - leading to dogmatic and rigid thinking.
In general, i typically tend to focus on this type of Meditation as an antidote; when feelings of Shame may threaten to arise within me - which i consider to be a type of “Disgust” reaction towards oneself (A form of self directed Ill-Will/Hatred) - as a consequence of one’s ignorance about the impermanent nature of impure actions/unpleasant qualities which one may have unwittingly associated with themselves on a permanent basis. Such a practice of repeating the Mantra in my head, and focusing on each of these three aspects of the Self illusion/delusion, helps me to dispel these feelings of Self loathing - or even pride for that matter.
Thats just my experience, would love to know if anyone has experienced anything similar? Thanks.
Yes, that sounds like a very nice practice! 🙏
Thanks for this. I really think the up-rootting and un-packing of individuality is a really enlightening part of Buddhism and being aware. Although, it always makes me start pondering collectivity and whether collectivity is the 'real reality' rather then a perceived sense of self.
This is one of my totally favorite topics! Gets right at the heart of matters and the great mysteries of existence and conscious awareness. And again, it is just so terrific how you actually know the literature and can discuss earliest sources. I currently find it helpful to distinguish between "just awareness" and the "objects of awareness" and include among those the experience of having thoughts, feelings, sensations and perceptions that we usually consider to be the "self". I _really_ like the story of the elderly monk and the analogy of the sense of an "I" being like a lingering scent of a flower. I'll check out the Khemaka video. Thanks!
My pleasure! Yes it's fascinating stuff. 🙏
@@dharma8127 Hello! Didn't really understand the question from this translation: "As a voice, he plays consciousness to see objects of consciousness? A conscience would be a peace to tranquility?"
@@nsbd90now How do you distinguish consciousness from the objects of consciousness?
@@dharma8127 Ha! That is where it gets really tricky and language fails! Rupert Spira seems to do a terrific job with this as _practice_ rather than the more academic information found on Doug's Dharma. He has lot of short videos where he leads people through their own experience of being "aware of being aware" and apprehending that as distinct from the experience of having "thoughts, feelings, sensations and perceptions" that create the false egoic self in which "Just Awareness" gets entangled. It ends up being a both/and situation... two sides of the same coin. At first this is only intellectual realization, but with practice one's actual self-identity becomes more in line with reality, obviously with the goal of becoming an arhat. He's really helped me grow and move forward in all this. Check him out! Very cool!
Thank you for this discussion. I have been presenting this to meditation students for the last few weeks, your presentation is most useful in underlining the teachings on surrendering or abandoning Self View recognising the Fetters and in not going insane in finding alternative ways to express oneself for simple terms based on social conventions or the limitations of language. People can wrap themselves up in knots trying to avoid saying "I want a drink of water" "I think it's about to rain" or "I am a Buddhist" by trying to abandon a Self View.
Yes, the Buddha didn't recommend changing our language: th-cam.com/video/J0cW9LpLadQ/w-d-xo.html 😊
The subjective mind suffers. The objective mind doesn’t suffer. “I am” is subjective thinking. “I am not” is objective thinking. Anything we identify with creates a state of subjective mind. This comment comes from my direct experience of extreme suffering and contemplation of its cause. Doug’s analysis of Buddhist teachings has been and still is of great help and a guiding light. Thank you Doug. Respect and kindness 🙏🏼
🙏😊
Thank you Doug for the insightful enquiry based discussing talk.
" I am not THIS ( the 5 khandas) & THIS ( personality based self construct - sakkayadithi) is not my self". Thank you
🙏😊
Entap nós somos o quê na sua visão?
hi Doug, this is a very well done, thought-out and clear video! I found the explanation of it being deeper than a conceptual understanding of non-self to be pretty interesting and make a lot of sense. Something to add on too is that the conventionality of language in terms of getting rid of self view, or beliefs, or enlightenment and such. There is no such thing as self-view, a belief, or even enlightenment, these are mere conventional terms. There is no object, self-view to get rid of, but rather, it is more of a process that arises due to causes and conditions, whereas a conceptual belief in non-self is moreso being able to find these words more suiting to describing that which one has perceived. Self-view isn't always happening, but I believe in meditation the goal is to recognize the cause and condition that lead self-view to arise, and notice it for what it is, a temporary impermanent part of the world that has arisen due to causes and conditions and that will also secede. Like you said, it is deeper than being able to conceptually think "I don't believe in myself", well who is doing the believing?!
Thanks yes language can get in the way sometimes but it's also a wonderful tool.
Fantastic video, Doug. This clears much of the confusion.
Glad it was helpful!
I love the edition of your videos and how you explain and approach every topics. Just amazing.
Thanks so much! 🙏
Non-self as not self sourced reveals the Conditions arising causes and effects (the many actions giving the illusion of the 'one' or self) suffering scenario as a past to present to future self-promoted suffering instances.
This is a video i will be saving to my “Meditation Theory” Playlist 😉. What an excellent summary of such a complex and integral part of practice. Thanks Doug 🙏.
Glad it was helpful! 🙏
Thank you for bringing us the Dharma 🙏🏽🤩🙏🏽
My pleasure! 🙏😊
Wonderful video. As always. 😂 Thanks a lot! 🐱🙏
My pleasure, xiao mao! 🙏😄
I like what the Buddha said after the enlightenment that started with "anekajatisamsaram sandhavissam anibbisam ... " I have heard something about " pabhassara citta", the illuminous mind; some said this is our original citta. Then I have tried to understand Paṭiccasamuppada, the dependent origination. I heard that it is very important that one understand "phassa", the contact part; one of the keys is to be aware of phassa. I imagine that is the Door. 🤔
Yes, I've done videos on some of these, such as the luminous mind: th-cam.com/video/175JTI5AXc4/w-d-xo.html
Greetings Doug much Appreciated 😉
Very welcome! 🙏
The question of "self" never ceases to be among the most fascinating and puzzling topic. In my understanding, the Buddha's various discussions of "self" and non-self" sheds more light on "who and what am I" than any other philosophies or religions We may by now have a good understanding of what "self" is not. However, still we don't really have a crystal clear picture of what "self" is.
I constantly find that, the more I think I understand the Buddha's teachings, the more puzzled and bewildered I get. In the case of the five aggregates, doesn't it apply only to the realm of sentient living beings? What about living beings in the realms of non-sentiency and formless? Do living beings in these other two realms have less than five aggregates? Is it easier to understand "self" in their states of being? Could we gain a better understanding of what "self" is from observing beings in these other realms?
Good questions! Are beings with fewer than five aggregates really possible?
@@DougsDharma I just wonder if individuals in the realm of formless living beings lack some of the five aggregates such as the body. They thus presumably lack sensory organs to interact with the surroundings. If that's the case, will they also lack thinking and action aggregates? That will leave them with just consciousness.
Good Stuff! In my limited experience , it is not about believing in something or disbelieving in something. It's not that we exist in some part or form after death, or that we do not exist in some form after death. There is no "I" and not no "I". Lastly there are no "different levels" or not no different levels. IMO this is pointing to the experience or realization or seeing that which is beyond all concepts, or form, but if one thinks he/she is seeing beyond all forms or concepts, they are still stuck in form and concept. It is kind of like getting a big surprise that you could never imagine because the "surprise" transcends surprises along with imagination.
You really need to look at Lacanian Psychoanalysis's concept of none self.
Very similar to the Buddhist concept of none self.
I think the main issue is that no matter how the non-self is explained in words, ultimately there are just directions and we will only know about it once we have experienced it or catch a glimpse of it either in our practice or a spontaneous moment of sudden insight
Perhaps so!
Thanks
You're very welcome!
Hey Doug, something I've been wondering about for a while is the buddhist view on personality. While I understand that many things about a human are impermanent, it seems as though there is a consist personality/traits that continue throughout the life of a person e.g. an introvert or extroverted person. Do you have any insights on this?
Yes I’ve done a couple of videos about this general topic. Check out my playlist: Self and Non-self in Buddhism
th-cam.com/play/PL0akoU_OszRjA9n0-U24ZCpfEQVFxeGz2.html
If it had been in the Heart Sutra, it would probably have read, "I am not this, I am not not this." From my inclinations, what he talks about using the five aggregates here, and not being this, would be also the distinction between pravrtti-sukha and (adi-) mahasukha, ordinary sukha, and primordial sukha, with sukha here being contraposed with dukkha.
(five aggregates) is not mine (not part of), I am not this (not identical to), -- this is not my self (?), the last phrase introduces "self", unless you equate it with "I". Or it equates with the five aggregates. At least so it would seem.
🙏
Hello Doug!
Thank you for making this video. As far as non-self goes, there are still a few questions i have. Do you by chance know if there is any evidence in the Buddhas early teachings to suggest that Buddha understood how you ARE everything outside of your skin? That you ARE the universe? If so could you provide that evidence? Maybe even make a video on this? I understand that later schools of Buddhism have developed which have interpreted the Buddhas early teachings this way. There is a video called “Alan Watts lectures | The Void” by a youtuber named “Raving Electron” where this is explained thoroughly. But as far as im aware, the Buddha himself only taught that you are the brain/body as the 5 aggregates and revealed the paradoxical & therefore illusory nature of our self as this form or these 5 aggregates. But i have yet to discover evidence to suggest that he understood how you ARE everything beyond form or outside of your brain/body; the 5 aggregates. Please please please get back to me on this! I look forward to deepening my understanding of non-self thanks to you! Much love & thanks again 🙏
Yes the Buddha explicitly rejected the claim that you are identical with everything or with the whole universe. See for example my video on non-dualism: th-cam.com/video/43v6lLweukg/w-d-xo.html
@@DougsDharma thank you so much! Just curious, would you consider yourself non-dualist yourself?
Some people who are experts in reading and translating ancient Pali claim that the Buddha never taught the doctrine of no Atman. They claim that this doctrine of no Atman arose a few hundred years after the Buddha passed.
Hi Doug, have you read the sutta 'a little spell of emptiness'? It's a fairly simple read but the way emptiness is described seems different to the notion of 'empty of self' or 'empty of inherent existence' which is how I understand emptiness. I'd like to see your take on this sutta; perhaps you could put it in context for me at least.
I'm not sure which sutta you're talking about. If you mean the Shorter Discourse on Emptiness, I did a video on that: th-cam.com/video/XbHcqUnWBlc/w-d-xo.html
@@DougsDharma ah yes, it is the same one, just checked. A few sites have given a different name for some reason.
I wouldn't rely on those sites for translating.
So do npeople say, Self island?
What is Self island?
I am whatever I am is Self island.
🙏🏽
🙏😊
🙏
🙏😊
Advaita Vedanta says dissolving the ego will give realisation to the True Self. The ego will dissolve into Universal Self. Nagarjuna said that everything is temporary since everything is made of building blocks but Advaitins put SELF as the smallest building blocks of the Universe. Is there any counter logic against this? And did this concept existed during Buddha's time?
Basically self-reference causes suchness to wobble.
Buddhists have the concept of non self, shunyata etc.. Advaita agrees with it but upto a certain extent.
Advaita's reply to that is:
No-self is known to whom? Emptiness is known by what ?
@BarbarraBay
Mind can never in a billion years know emptiness..
You clearly have zero clue about emptiness nor buddhism
@BarbarraBay you need to broaden your mind and open your heart a lot to even understand the full range and breadth of emptiness my dear Karen, emptiness is a lot more than simply no self.
Emptiness is the way things actually are meaning things don't have an independent existence of their own, try reading nagarjuna and his tetrelemma etc..
Ultimately emptiness is also not empty because it is dependant upon the precursor which is the perceiving entity, without you there is no emptiness.
You come first then comes the concept of emptiness.
My earlier video on non-dualism touches on some of this: th-cam.com/video/43v6lLweukg/w-d-xo.html
Not self.
Not non-self.
Not both self and non-self.
Not neither self nor non-self.
Any concept we have about our basic nature is incomplete, inaccurate, and in fact block our direct experience of things as they really are.
TATHATA
Without the self the athma you cannot have reincarnation. So budhism has to accept the athma
This one say, Doug's I is.
Dharmachakkasutta say all about Tathagatha I.
Count down the letter I in Dharmachakka sutta.
Doug's real I is, Tathagatha I, Dharmabody I, Nirvana I.
Aggregate is not real self, not Doug's and not real self of Doug.
So Doug can refuge to Doug's pure I, Nirvana I.
Without nirvana I, no Buddha can enlighten!
Doug, you don't know your pure I now.
Pure I is all transcedent.
Open!
When opened, what happen?
HA@ HA@ HA@
นี่ไม่ใช่ของเรา
นี่ไม่ใช่เรา
นี่ไม่ใช่อัตตาของเรา
สาธุ ขอบคุณครับ
no self basically is what it is :D there's no self, just like no soul, you are result of everything, and part of everything, that's it
🙏
🙏😊