ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Buddhism's Non-self: How Do You Know? Looking at a Critique
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ส.ค. 2024
- How do we come to know the truth of non-self in early Buddhism? Do we come to it through deep meditative insight, or by other means? We'll look at a recent critique of the claim that we come to know non-self through deep meditative insight.
📙 Check out my new book, A Handbook of Early Buddhist Wisdom, with a Foreword by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi: books2read.com...
🧡 If you find this material useful, check out my Patreon page and get fun benefits like exclusive videos, audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: / dougsseculardharma
🧡 You can also make donations through: paypal.me/doug...
☸️ Free mini-course at the Online Dharma Institute: onlinedharma.org.
✅ Videos mentioned:
Did the Buddha Teach No Self? -- • Did the Buddha Teach N...
How Deep Should Buddhist Meditation Get? The Question of Jhana -- • How Deep Should Buddhi...
✅ SuttaCentral thread:
discourse.sutt...
✅ Suttas mentioned:
suttacentral.n...
suttacentral.n...
suttacentral.n...
suttacentral.n...
00:00 Intro
01:59 Rick Repetti’s argument
03:57 Response: we don’t ordinarily experience self
05:42 Separating epistemological and practical
07:08 Knowing non-self in early Buddhism
08:34 What is “self” in early Buddhism?
09:30 Jhāna and non-self
15:46 Meditation and ontology in early Buddhism
17:45 Meditation’s practical role in realizing non-self
Facebook: / onlinedharmainstitute
Twitter: / dougsdharma
❤️ Thanks to Patreon Patrons:
Anonymous (1)
Scarlett Farrow
Carlos Gutierrez
Matthew Smith
Bob Snead
JC
Shantha Wengappuli
Karma_CAC
Johan Thelander
Michael Roe
Jorge Seguel
Christopher Apostolof
GailJM
Steven Kopp
Brett Merritt
David Bell
T Pham
VCR
Upayadhi
Andi and Erik
ATGuerrero686
Michael Scherrer
Michael Seefeld
khobe schofield
Alex Perdomo
Benji Forsyth
Kaine Usher
Cookie Forthecookie
Blaze Way
Adam
Andrew Posner
Sonny Flink
Steve Marlor
David W
Joy L Lee
Andrew Tom
Anthony Tucker
Karlee R
Rob Parisien
Ethan M
Billy in Singapore
Derek Birch
Matthew G Mynttinen
Theodor Bernhard
Michael Lefsky
Aziz Rahman
Olivia Otter
Disclaimer: Amazon links are affiliate links where I will earn a very small commission on purchases you make, at no additional cost to you. This goes a tiny way towards defraying the costs of making these videos. Thank you!
🧡 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
Thank you for another well thought out and informative video. The Atta is a figment of one's imagination - a delusion the mind creates to make what happens to us seem important. If I want good things to happen to ME and bad things not to happen to ME, it becomes a priority of mind and body to think and act in ways aimed at achieving those goals. It is useful as an organizational principal for the system. The side effect is that we spend all of our time worrying about a fictional character - the self. When the 5 hindrances are not clouding our minds and we reflect on the true nature of this Atta, we may see that it is indeed just a creation of mind - nothing which need be worried about at all. This is Anatta.
Yes that's well put Brian, thanks!
Well said friend!
very well put Brian
@@Teller3448 That which is dependently arisen, composed of the five aggregates, and temporary.
@@Teller3448 A temporary self composed of the five aggregates, dependently arisen, and temporary is different from materialism because materialism rejects the re-arising, the rebirth, of a new dependently arisen self, composed of the five aggregates, which is also temporary. Nibbana is the extinguishment of the rebirth process.
Just as a campfire extinguishes when the wood is burnt up. There being no more fuel for new flames to arise, the process of burning ceases. The light, heat, and sound of the fire is no more. What is left when the fire ceases? The unborn, the unbecome, the unmade, the unconditioned. In other words, there is nothing.
I have no words for the brilliance (in terms of thoroughness) of this video, except of "thanks a lot"! 😁😊🙏🏻
🙏😊
Yes.
Very cool Doug, I am in awe of your ability to engage with academic philosophical works, even as an academic historian myself, it seems like an immensely challenging field
Yes it can be very challenging. I'm just scratching the surface, I wouldn't want to have to write up an academic paper on all this ... 😄
I have been attracted to Buddhist teaching, primarily Dzochen,for decades. I consider myself as a philosophical or secular Buddhist. I always have had areas that I'm not grasping,other than as conceptual conundrums to play with. Anatta is one of those. When I grieve over the loss of a loved one,their selfhood is what I miss,and illusory or not,as they say in the south,when you get hit,you holler. I can only approach the subject as a matter of balancing self with oneness,and that negation of perception of self is not the goal. All faith traditions seem preoccupied with selflessness,but I've come to value the self, although it's not the solid,permanent entity I thought it was.
Yes and it's perfectly normal to feel sadness over the loss of another person. We cling to lots of things in life, but we cling to people most strongly.
Bernadette Roberts, a Christian mystic who died in 2017 and had REMARKABLY similar experiences to Buddhism, explains that ecstasy (which would be what she calls jhana) is the temporary experience of lacking the reflexive attribute of consciousness (self). In ecstasy there no room for this reflexive attribute, thus there is no room for consciousness, thus there is no room for self. She also mentions that the problem with it is that it's temporary, so it's not the end of the journey. The journey only ends when the reflexive attribute of consciousness bending in on itself permanently ends.
🙏
Amazing video! Very informative and very well explained. Thank you very much!
Glad it was helpful!
When my my mind releases and attains to jhana, the conceptual self is let go of, but I can't deny that there is this pure self that remains, which is pure radiant bliss, a completely non-contrived processles state, and then everything is known as that
Dependent on eyes and objects, eye consciousness arises. It is a natural process, just an experience, without any need of a Self.
From the sight, a preference or liking arises. Based on the preference, the thought of relishing or rejecting it occurs. Because of this thought, i.e. - of I like it or I like it not, the I or Self is felt. The Self is fabricated and assumed to be real, substantial and permanent through this recurring process.
Just look at the image in the mirror and the I or Self spontaneously sprung up. Pay attention to how it happened.
Exactly so, it's good practice.
@@Teller3448 one feels, one recognises what one felt, one thinks about what one recognised. They are like bubbles, mirage and plantain trees. Nothing persistent, nothing substantial but one objectified them to become me, mine, self.
Great video. Thank you!
You are welcome!
Will you do more videos on criticisms of non-self? I really liked this one
I will have another similar video coming out soon. If I can find other interesting critiques I may do more, we'll see. 😄
Thanks for great and clear explanation of non-self.
My pleasure! 🙏
Thanks for another thought provoking video. I would change the analogy to you think you see a cathedral in the distance. As you walk toward it you realize it is just a rock formation with some trees around it. I suppose the skeptic can say you were just hallucinating that it was just a rock formation and trees. Here we have to leave the analogy behind. If what you saw is true even if you were hallucinating(like the experience was impersonal or impermanent) than I think you survive the objection. There are expectations for what a self is and they have to be identified and examined closely.
Yes, I think we have to investigate what we mean by "self".
Thank you for coming back to this topic. I am a bit worried when someone wants proof of the negative such as the nonexistence of something. Nonexistence should be the obvious assumption (or good luck with your income tax return for instance: you could be considered earning billions of dollars just for tax purposes - no proof required for that, unless you prove that you did NOT earn billions of dollars). The “non self” is a “non-claim” and does not require validation. If someone claims that there is such a thing as a “self”, then they must prove it. For instance, a computer has a "self" and I can prove it: it is in its hard disk. You can unplug it and install it on another machine and it will be “itself” again. It is not the processor, not the RAM not the graphic card nor the motherboard. It is the hard disk and it works every time even though the computer does not know about it.
What about the human brain? Its activity produces the mind, that we feel like a “self”. It feels as real as the fact that the Earth is flat and the sun turns around the Earth. My limited understanding in neuroscience unfortunately tells me that there is no place in the brain that can be called the “self” zone. Every brain is wired differently and there is no single part that contains a specific memory. I assume therefore that a “self” does not really exist by itself even though I feel it. It is a powerful and useful illusion as our eyesight is. Democritus was also right about atoms but he could not prove them. The Buddha did not have brain surgery skills and brain scans to prove his idea. His insight was the best tool he had and he reached the right conclusion against the common belief of his time.
I also believe that the Buddha denied the existence of a soul that reincarnates as a logical conclusion of recognizing that the self does not really exist even though we can feel it. Maybe later on, when the sangha had grown and monks tried so solace uneducated people around them, they realized that pestering them with disbelief did not turn out well. The past lives theory was probably a metaphor for the depth of the insight of the Buddha, that was taken literally by people that needed such wrong views to restore some hope in hard times. I assume that the Buddha tolerated this as a part of his ethical stance. I personally think that some people really do need these stories to feel better and cannot find hope unless they believe in some kind of supernatural survival. Anyway, this is just my opinion based on a reasoning and some fallible and maybe misunderstood science. I honestly do not think that the question about self or non-self should be addressed by looking into ancient texts today.
Sure, I think using modern science is very fruitful when looking into questions about the self. Thanks Marco!
What I'm interested in is the possible parallel to these Jhanas and the actual experience of what TM people refer to transcendence or transcendental consciousness. It's the point where you even transcend time, identity of a self , body it's even something that even apparently feels like it happens after ecstatic Bliss there's no nothing there. It's like the mind doesn't even comprehend it until it starts to come back up into the field of thinking. So you can go back there as long as it's not a grasping. It's quite a shock at the point where it happens. One particular Buddhist bhiku refer to it as a sort of yo-yo Jhana. One Chan master suggest that that's a fourth Jhana. It's quite interesting and inspiring to hear about this Jhana explanation for many of us long time transcendental meditators. I'm just curious what your thoughts might be on this. Imagine it might be difficult to say if you've never practiced transcendental Meditation but I don't think it's any different than the anapansati. You know one you're just using your breath and following it to stillness the other is just a word, bija root mantra.
Yes I haven't practiced TM but it does sound very similar. It wouldn't surprise me at all if similar states could be achieved by various different practices.
Excellent Presentation Sir !
Many thanks!
I love that i have buddha nature and thus im here listening to you. Everyday adding to my machine so that i may help others add to theirs in the future. Thank you.
Great, you're very welcome BurZ!
Indeed a good explanation.
suppose, If we need to go for a long journey, and we can use few methods reach to the destination. for that we can use a vehicle or else we use a flight if you are rich enough ,instead of going by foot.
amongst them Those who can have the flight, they can reach the destination quickly and more comfortably.Same thing Janas do to those who going through eight fold path to achieve the enlightenment
Yes, deep meditative practice can be very useful!
Thanks!
You're very welcome!
My understanding is that the non-self teaching is a skillful means to reduce our attachments (and possibly much it is closer to the truth than the doctrine of the self), and not to be taken as a mathematical truth. The Buddha refused to confirm or deny the self when questioned by Ananda. The objection of eliminativism is taking this teaching to be metaphysical doctrine. The Buddha does not deny the individual - just emphasizes it's impermanence. The doctrine of the self essentially makes the individual permanent (and therefore stuck in endless rounds of birth, death and suffering).
Yes that's right Bauddh. The Buddha's non-self teaching is essentially a middle road between taking the self as permanent and believing there is absolutely no self at all.
Using non self to LET Go. What happen in the past and the thinking of future is not "you" "yourself" "yours". Thej you can stay in the PRESENT MOMENT
Yes, that's good. You also have to let go of the self in the present. 🙂
The concept of self seems to be very confusing. The fact that there is no permanent, unchanging self seems quite evident from experience. Our minds change over the course of our lives, and even our consciousness comes and goes. However, there is a very real sense of a self. That sense of self can be seen to be illusory in that it exists in one way (it comes and goes to differing degrees), but appears in another (it seems to omnipresent if not deeply investigated).
Right, and I think that's one reason why the Buddha never actually comes out and says there is "no self" at all.
Thank you for this perspective and for giving it in the context of the suttas. I’m interested in the excerpt from the sutta you have cited as DN 2.83 but I don’t understand the citation. Aren’t suttas in the digha nikaya listed in whole numbers since there are no chapters? Can you tell me how to locate this particular text? Thanks!
There are links to suttas in the show notes, if you go to the link you can find the subsection.
Anatta is the buddhas interpretation of theseus boat. The buddha adheres that none of them are, but all of them are.... atleast thats what i understood from the description of Rupa (form).
While the Buddha never really gave an argument like the Ship of Theseus in his discourses, I agree that it is congenial to his approach with the self.
Look at the world and witness it
I have noticed a lot of the critics come from a place of little understanding, and no experience. When you have experienced these things for yourself you can turn his own argument against him. Because he is far away from the experience of realizing no-self, he is trying to claim that it is impossible. Like a person who is tired and weak, saying it is impossible to build this house, when the master builder could assemble it piece by piece with ease.
I am having a similar conflict of knowing regarding rebirth in the sense of "rebirth after death into a new (samsaric) existence". How, if I believe I remember past lives, can I be certain that it's true and not makebelieve or fake memories? And so far I haven't found a satisfying answer to this.
It raises all kinds of questions such as: are there claims in Buddhism that cannot be proven objectively or intersubjectively? And if yes, what does this mean for when I am inquiring whether the Dharma really is a reliable teaching?
Well to my mind if you can’t verify it properly, then perhaps leave it aside as a speculation and continue on with the practical work.
@@DougsDharma well that seems like a useful aporoach. Thanks :)!
Superb 🔥🔥🔥🔥 sir
Thanks! 🙏😊
It seems to me that what you suggest is cultivating enough samadhi, through jhana or other methods such as mindfulness of the breath, to be able to focus and reflect on one's experience in the present moment which reveals non-self. Jhana is a conditioned phenomena, like any other in the world, and is subject to arising and passing away.
Right, though this picture comes from the suttas rather than from me.
@@DougsDharma Point well taken. 🙏
Yes Jhanna is conditioned. Attaining Jhanna allows one to be reborn in form and formless realms.. yet Jhanna is ultimately needed to eradicatie the 10 fetters and be enlightened
Can you make a physical copy of your book please? I'd really like to buy a copy.
The distributor hasn't provided that option yet. If and when it becomes available I'll let everyone know!
To experience non-self is more difficult than to understand it intellectually. That said going from theoretical knowledge to actual experience represents a giant leap which indicates true progress
Yes, quite so. 🙏
@@Teller3448 According to the Buddhist texts I have read, it is cannot be described but only felt or experienced. Such a phenomenon is beyond human intellect. Though to be honest occasionally I also get stumped by this question
@@Teller3448 Agreed
Have you read "Should we come out of Jhåna to practice Vipassanå?" By Bhante Henepola Gunaratana? What are your thoughts on it?
I haven't read that one.
Non self is not jhana experience. Non self is reality, it's seen through reality of conditionality
Yes, though we can reach it through insight into jhāna as well.
Nice discussion on self, non-self and jhana.
I would add 2 notions I picked up, the first coming from Daniel Ingram's book.
He claims that Jhana can be on a scale from samatha (tranquility) to Vipassana (insight). And so the regular Jhana, of absorption, are mostly samatha Jhana. Whereas Vipassana Jhana produce insight. The latter also satisfies 7 factors of enlightenment, where the former satisfies 6.
The second notion is that I think the true - self and non-self are closer than one might think. I believe that there is a fixed self, the stories we tell about ourselves, and that there is a flowing self, our direct experience of reality. I think that meditation can reduce the fixed self and therefore give room to the flowing self. Someone who believes in true self, points to this flowing self emerging. Someone who believes in non self, points to the fixed self disappearing. They both point to a different aspect of the same process: going from fixed to flowing self.
Yes thinking of a 'flowing self' is more skillful, though it depends in which directions it flows! 😄
With all due respect, I believe that even if many aspects of the Self always change and are really a Non Self, there is a part of us called our character, which makes each one of us a specific different human being.
Yes, our character or personality in traditional Buddhism is understood to be explained by our karma, which makes us who we are. I discuss some of this in my video on the luminous mind: th-cam.com/video/175JTI5AXc4/w-d-xo.html
I wish I could have helped financially ... But I live far away from USA and is not from the developed world.
No worries nayanmalig! 🙏😊
Self is permanent, unchanging esp in the Upanishads. Do rem the Vedic schools were not the only one that postulate a self. There were many non Vedic schools too. See DN 2
Sure, though we know a lot about the Upaniṣadic beliefs because we have independent evidence for their texts. Jainism as well. Other schools we know less about.
I have a question. I don’t quite understand, how the historical Buddha was able to see past lives, if there is no permanent self. I understand that everything changes, even the self, but something must have been the same to be able to be in past lives. Is it an impermanent kind of ever changing consciousness? If so, couldn’t that be called a kind of self, that continues from life to life? I’m confused. Thank you for your videos.
What goes on is an ever-changing mix of mental and physical states. Memories are included in that mix. As a secular practitioner I leave aside speculations about past or future lives, but the Buddha felt that memories could persist through death. This mix of ever-changing mental and physical states is a *kind* of a self, which is why the Buddha never said there was absolutely no self at all. But it isn't a permanent, nor an unchanging self.
Will your book appear in physical format? As I could not find it other than ebook. Many thanks.
The distributor doesn't yet have the option of releasing it in physical format. When and if it does, I'll let you all know.
Why you don't have many subscribers?🙏🙏🙏
😄 I think I do! But feel free to share the videos to anyone you think would be interested!
Non self it's seen by Vipassana
Yes, indeed that's what vipassana is.
@@DougsDharma Vipassana is wisdom seeing natural(sankhara) following to truth
You never find the permanent self because you are it. The eyes see but cant see themselves. The Self knows, but cant know itself. That doesn’t mean there’s no self. The Buddha never said that there is “no self”. Even when asked directly in one of the suttas, he doesn’t give a definitive yes or know. But the Self (you) is in truth Absolute and Unconditioned. Limitless Awareness. But because the Self is Limitless, it (you) cant be defined. So then it appears that from limitlessness, from non definability we could sat there is no self, if we define self in terms of definability. I would say that there is neither Self nor no Self. I love the Buddha Dharma! But i think there are some confusion within the lay sangha about Buddhas teaching on annatta.
That’s right Calvin, I did a video on that topic recently: th-cam.com/video/wUDnPy6ACG4/w-d-xo.html
Can u tell me in 3 words that who am i summurizing all buddhas teachings? Pllzzzz❤️❤️❤️
You aren’t you, there are three words
Could you comment on the argument that the translation should be " not- self" as opposed to " non- self"?
Well these are tiny differences in emphasis. To me "non-self" just sort of means looking at experience without using the concept of 'self' at all, whereas "not-self" seems to be saying that we should keep 'self' in mind and try to find things that aren't it. Both may be useful in certain circumstances, but to my understanding the former captures a larger range of what the Buddha is after.
Its actually not-self. The Buddha never said theres no self.
That’s right.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying dhyana/jhana is not a method for experiencing no-self. My own experience(s) of no-self are very deep in dhyana of a sort, they require a conscious choice to let go that is unnerving (fear of not existing). They are not 'complete' in the sense that the knowledge of no-self isn't something I can sustain through the day because I just can't accomplish that much mindfulness. And to that extent, dhyana is a method (epistemology) for the experience of no-self but cannot be the only one. Maybe that's why there are 8 noble truths and not just one.
At least to my knowledge jhāna isn’t described that way in the early texts. But if you find it useful to experiencing non-self, that’s great!
It is quite possible that the reason for that is that no-self is not a goal, but a thing through which you pass on the way, and the goal was right samadhi, not right dhyana.
First, thank you for these very useful videos. There have recently been some good conversations about western colonization of Buddhism, warping it to become something that some would no longer consider to still be Buddhism. This video (which I am not endorsing, just pointing out) is one example. th-cam.com/video/38Q1qKi7-GI/w-d-xo.html . I'd really be interested on your take on this. BTW I have purchased your new book and so far find it wonderful.
Thanks Charles! I don't have much to say about different sorts of Buddhism except to say that Buddhism has changed many times over the millennia as it has moved from place to place. That doesn't mean that earlier or different practices are worse, or wrong, or for that matter necessarily better, or right. It's just different approaches to the same problems of humanity.
As per Kalama Sutta it is OK to question reject and choose your own path .... Even another faith .... As long as it does not lead to harm of life and property.
I think you fairly easily dismantled his argument. Clearly his knowledge of what the Buddha taught is limited.
What I will say is though, is that although there is no permanent 'self' in respect of thoughts, emotions, feelings, desires, cognition etc. There is in fact a permanent state that is 'being'. Once we have attained the state of 'being' in this world (conception, birth), indeed the Universe, we cannot ever 'not be'. Though the body may die, and with it consciousness, the matter of our body goes on. This is a scientific fact. Matter cannot be destroyed, it can only ever be transformed. Therefore, even after death, we are still in a state of 'being'. So, although transformed from conscious (alive), to a state of death, we remain in a state of 'being'. In that respect, it could be argued, that there is in fact a permanent 'self'.
Something to think about, Doug :)
Thanks for your input, Patrick.
I don't know who this Repetti is, or why anyone would care what he says about Buddhism, but he clearly has no idea what he's talking about. It's not that we don't see the so-called "self" and therefore think there isn't one, but that what we ordinarily think of as the "self" doesn't actually exist even when we supposedly are looking at it. We understand anatta through investigation, not, to my knowledge, through jhana. Jhana is subsumed under samadhi, leading (we hope) to panna (wisdom), through which we come to understand, in the deepest sense, anatta. So at best Repetti is engaging in some kind of straw man argument of his own design, one which has nothing to do with Buddhist teachings.
After watching the entire video (I probably should get in the habit of doing that before commenting) I see that what you explain is 100 percent in line with my own understanding, which is gratifying to know. Thanks for the clear discussion and refutation of Repetti. I hope he sees this video and comes to a more correct understanding of the topic.
Thanks Rick!
Truth cannot be put into words. Please excuse this poor effort. Non self is anything that one can experience. Self, if one can call it that, can be found, (But not experienced) before. Before what? Before anything that the mind can conceive of, or experience.
a critique required minimal knowledge and rick has none