I see the “self” as a collection of ever-changing processes (the five aggregates). It’s a bit like an eddy or little whirlpool in a stream in that it’s defined by an ever-changing process (of water swirling around in the case of the eddy). By extension, other people are a collection of processes as well.
Dear Buddhist Sympathizer, Very good and thought provoking video! I enjoyed it a lot, but one thing remained unclear to me. Could you please elaborate on why your buddhist take is not the same as solipsism? I agree that solipsism should not be taken as a viable position. Someone once said: if someone truly believed in solipsism, he wouldn't argue about it with other people because he only needs to convince himself. I am only at the start of my 'spiritual' (I do not like that word) journey so I do not know much about buddhism, but I am a bit familiar with advaita. Personally, I agree more with the idea of consciousness/awareness as the basis of reality, but maybe that is because I am just biased. I think I experienced something like a 'no self' during a mental breakdown/psychosis, where all there was left was just 'an experience/a proces' (similar to what you had explained in previous videos about breaking the fetters). I however do not know for certain if -- at the core -- there is really something (like atma) or nothing. But Schopenhauer made the argument that by knowing ourselves we can know others. For him we are made up of will (similar to the advaita concept of awareness) and therefore it could be inferred others are made of that too. I agree that it's more of a logical extrapolation instead of real experiential knowledge so it is still open for debate. Another philosopher named Bernardo Kastrup however also agrees with Schopenhauer/the advaita line of thought. For him, other people are localizations of consciousness. Like whirlpools in water: from the outside you can see a whirlpool but at its core all of them are made of the same water. Each whirlpool represents an experience/a unique viewpoint of someone who, just like you, looks at the world from a different perspective... but in the end it's the same consciousness (water) that is enabling it all. Its difficult for me to explain, but you can find many videos of him on youtube. He is also a very interesting man. He has 2 Phd's (one in philosophy and one in computer science). Kind regards, Sam
Hi Sam, and thank you for your comment. I need to get back to making videos, as your question is quite complex. Solipsism has, what I would call, a definite landing place - What does exist or what can be definitely claimed to be. This would naturally be in a comparison to what does NOT exist. A Duality (two things). This would be an absolute definite position (as opposed to merely an idea or a belief). To explain the Buddhist 'Emptiness' view, it would state that any claim (such as the one above) is 'of the mind' - Simply a mental position - A belief. However, with that view comes the realisation that that itself (what I have just stated) is also just another mental position - A belief. 'The mind' or 'A mind' cannot be found as some-sort of inherently existing entity or process . . . neither can anything else I've written here. Indeed, to claim something exists or does not exist is 'of the mind' in the same way. So paradoxically, to says 'It's all created by the mind' is a statement 'created by the mind'. We look for something definite, permanent, solid, unchanging to land upon . . . and we are unable to find such a thing. The mind creates the illusion of duality - Seperation - Two things. Everything is known in comparison. This is why the ancients called it 'Advaita' - 'Not Two' - They didn't refer to it or make claims with the words 'It's one thing' other than for description. Buddhist's wouldn't claim that any mental position (such as 'all that exists in the Self, Awareness, Consciousness etc) is incorrect, false or wrong . . . or indeed that Solipsism is wrong . . . merely that the claim is of the kind that I've stated above. Usually referred to as being 'Empty'.
@@buddhistsympathizer1136 Thank you very much for the fast and extensive response. It has cleared some things up for me, but I will keep on contemplating on what you have just said. I look forward to your new video(s)! Have a nice day. - Sam
@@Daixywiejdbawj I appreciate that, Sam. I hope that made sense. It can be a bit tricky to grasp. Perhaps another way of looking at things is this . . . In the very distant past . . . the formation of language and concepts gave rise to the ability to think and communicate. Everything got a label. But at the same time, doing this (labelling / conceptualising the world) gave rise to the illusion that a) objects have some sort of independence and permanency to them which they do not have and b) The label IS the object itself (when clearly it is not, it's a label). For a simple example, if I said 'I am going to buy a bottle of milk' we automatically assume that 'I' is the thing itself. Clearly the label / word 'I' couldn't buy milk, and we don't mean the label 'I' in the sentence. And similarly . . . If you looked at a range of photographs of yourself through-out the ages, clearly the photos show a different thing . . . a person/body that has changed . . . yet we say 'All the photos are ME' . . . subtly believing the photos are of a thing that doesn't change or has a permanency or independence about it. Both of these examples point to the emptiness of the self.
Sorry if you’ve covered this in another video, but how on Gods flat Earth does one transform the intellectual understanding of no-self/others into a direct experiential understanding? It seems as if the former is describing the taste of an orange and the latter is taking a bite. Many thanks for these informative uploads 👍
Hi A FIsher, and thank you for your comment. Your analogy regarding the orange is a good one. I have an entire six or seven part series on this realisation - The first video is entitled 'Realising 'no self' in simple terms - Breaking the First Fetter - Introduction'. Check it out - I wish you well, and would love to hear how you get on.
Thanks again. Your series of videos is really helping me with understanding many of the concepts i was lost with.
I see the “self” as a collection of ever-changing processes (the five aggregates). It’s a bit like an eddy or little whirlpool in a stream in that it’s defined by an ever-changing process (of water swirling around in the case of the eddy). By extension, other people are a collection of processes as well.
Realy useful video,thanks
Dear Buddhist Sympathizer,
Very good and thought provoking video! I enjoyed it a lot, but one thing remained unclear to me.
Could you please elaborate on why your buddhist take is not the same as solipsism? I agree that solipsism should not be taken as a viable position. Someone once said: if someone truly believed in solipsism, he wouldn't argue about it with other people because he only needs to convince himself.
I am only at the start of my 'spiritual' (I do not like that word) journey so I do not know much about buddhism, but I am a bit familiar with advaita. Personally, I agree more with the idea of consciousness/awareness as the basis of reality, but maybe that is because I am just biased. I think I experienced something like a 'no self' during a mental breakdown/psychosis, where all there was left was just 'an experience/a proces' (similar to what you had explained in previous videos about breaking the fetters).
I however do not know for certain if -- at the core -- there is really something (like atma) or nothing. But Schopenhauer made the argument that by knowing ourselves we can know others. For him we are made up of will (similar to the advaita concept of awareness) and therefore it could be inferred others are made of that too. I agree that it's more of a logical extrapolation instead of real experiential knowledge so it is still open for debate.
Another philosopher named Bernardo Kastrup however also agrees with Schopenhauer/the advaita line of thought. For him, other people are localizations of consciousness. Like whirlpools in water: from the outside you can see a whirlpool but at its core all of them are made of the same water. Each whirlpool represents an experience/a unique viewpoint of someone who, just like you, looks at the world from a different perspective... but in the end it's the same consciousness (water) that is enabling it all. Its difficult for me to explain, but you can find many videos of him on youtube. He is also a very interesting man. He has 2 Phd's (one in philosophy and one in computer science).
Kind regards,
Sam
Hi Sam, and thank you for your comment.
I need to get back to making videos, as your question is quite complex.
Solipsism has, what I would call, a definite landing place - What does exist or what can be definitely claimed to be. This would naturally be in a comparison to what does NOT exist. A Duality (two things).
This would be an absolute definite position (as opposed to merely an idea or a belief).
To explain the Buddhist 'Emptiness' view, it would state that any claim (such as the one above) is 'of the mind' - Simply a mental position - A belief.
However, with that view comes the realisation that that itself (what I have just stated) is also just another mental position - A belief.
'The mind' or 'A mind' cannot be found as some-sort of inherently existing entity or process . . . neither can anything else I've written here.
Indeed, to claim something exists or does not exist is 'of the mind' in the same way.
So paradoxically, to says 'It's all created by the mind' is a statement 'created by the mind'. We look for something definite, permanent, solid, unchanging to land upon . . . and we are unable to find such a thing.
The mind creates the illusion of duality - Seperation - Two things. Everything is known in comparison.
This is why the ancients called it 'Advaita' - 'Not Two' - They didn't refer to it or make claims with the words 'It's one thing' other than for description.
Buddhist's wouldn't claim that any mental position (such as 'all that exists in the Self, Awareness, Consciousness etc) is incorrect, false or wrong . . . or indeed that Solipsism is wrong . . . merely that the claim is of the kind that I've stated above. Usually referred to as being 'Empty'.
@@buddhistsympathizer1136 Thank you very much for the fast and extensive response. It has cleared some things up for me, but I will keep on contemplating on what you have just said. I look forward to your new video(s)! Have a nice day.
- Sam
@@Daixywiejdbawj I appreciate that, Sam. I hope that made sense.
It can be a bit tricky to grasp.
Perhaps another way of looking at things is this . . .
In the very distant past . . . the formation of language and concepts gave rise to the ability to think and communicate. Everything got a label. But at the same time, doing this (labelling / conceptualising the world) gave rise to the illusion that a) objects have some sort of independence and permanency to them which they do not have and b) The label IS the object itself (when clearly it is not, it's a label).
For a simple example, if I said 'I am going to buy a bottle of milk' we automatically assume that 'I' is the thing itself. Clearly the label / word 'I' couldn't buy milk, and we don't mean the label 'I' in the sentence.
And similarly . . . If you looked at a range of photographs of yourself through-out the ages, clearly the photos show a different thing . . . a person/body that has changed . . . yet we say 'All the photos are ME' . . . subtly believing the photos are of a thing that doesn't change or has a permanency or independence about it.
Both of these examples point to the emptiness of the self.
Sorry if you’ve covered this in another video, but how on Gods flat Earth does one transform the intellectual understanding of no-self/others into a direct experiential understanding? It seems as if the former is describing the taste of an orange and the latter is taking a bite. Many thanks for these informative uploads 👍
Hi A FIsher, and thank you for your comment. Your analogy regarding the orange is a good one. I have an entire six or seven part series on this realisation - The first video is entitled 'Realising 'no self' in simple terms - Breaking the First Fetter - Introduction'. Check it out - I wish you well, and would love to hear how you get on.