A Buddhist Story About No-Self
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 มี.ค. 2023
- Who are you? What is your self? What is that which you call 'I' and who are 'you' to call it that?
Inquiry into the nature of the self is at the core of the Buddha's teaching - and it is the key to the Buddhist liberation from suffering. In this video we explore an ancient Buddhist story (from sometime between 100 BC and 200 AD) that has become iconic in the tradition.
It is a story about a monk, a king... and a chariot.
#philosophy #buddhism #wisdom
⭐ Support this channel: / seeker2seeker
💰PayPal Donation: www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted...
📨 Subscribe with email: www.seekertoseeker.com/esoter...
━━━━━━━━━━━━━
📚 Recommended Reading
▶ Milinda Pañha: www.sacred-texts.com/bud/mili...
▶ Early Buddhist scripture: www.accesstoinsight.org/
▶ A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy (Steven M. Emmanuel)
▶ An Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy (Stephen J. Laumakis)
▶ What the Buddha Taught (Walpola Rahula Thero)
▶ The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching (Thich Nhat Hanh)
▶ Foundations of Buddhism (Rupert Gethin)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🎶 Music used
1. S2S original track based on Brian Eno
2. • Jonny Greenwood - Phan...
3. • Behringer Model D Shin...
Read the video script here: www.seekertoseeker.com/a-budd...
A powerful message behind the story. When watching, there is only the action, watching. There is no Self that is watching. Because the Self is just an idea put together by thought.
Nonsense! If there is no self your are no different then a rock. There is a self what we call Buddha nature. If there is no self there is no Buddha to be found anywhere there is no sentient beings and there is no one to save. There is no compassion and love.
@@TreeGreenOak In Buddhism, if an object is impermanent and a source of stress, then it cannot be “self.” In order for something to be called a self, it needs to be unchanging and eternal. As a result of being unchanging, it cannot be an object that causes suffering and can therefore be called a self. In Buddhism, no such objects or entities exist.
But what if someone punches me and there is no-self? What did that person punch?
Buddhism does not deny the existence of a “conventional” self. Conventional terms such as tree, squirrel, man, woman and Buddha are all used for communication and understanding.
Interestingly, Buddha did say in the Majjhima Nikaya, “All things, conditioned or unconditioned, are anatta, are void of self and soul.” As a result, Buddhists do not believe in a static, permanent, independently existing entity or object called “self.”
@@user-vh1xf3zc9z What you talking about here is only relative truth I was talking about ultimate truth ultimate truth never changing and is empty of everything else except itself. The ultimate truth is your buddha nature, it is knowing without knowing it does things without thinking this is Buddha nature. And you say things are impermanent but it is not so because Buddha said impermanence means changing but there is no such thing as impermanence of phenomena. The forms are impermanent however nothing truly is it is only changing form as nothing cannot come from nothing and disappear itno nothing. There is no beginning and there is no end. I will bring you an example of this; let's take incance for example is it impermanant or is it not. It seems at the start that it is impermanent because if you burnt it, it will disappear however this is only an ordinary view if you analyze deep the incense never came from nothing it is made of elements of a tree spices clay etc now when it burns out you can still smell it so is it gone? No it turns into smoke it changes it from it goes out in the air in the form of carbon dioxide the tree breaths carbon dioxide and the incence now becomes a tree and again we make new incense of a three and the cycle continues. You see this cycle is called outer Kalachakra this is never-ending. Everything is like this never born and never dies allwys just changing forms.
@@TreeGreenOakthere are two truths...
The real truth... No self just atoms flesh bones ears hearing eyes seeing.
The apparent truth.... Where we combine all these above to call us SELF....
If your name is James...
Do we call your cells James? Or Your Body James? When you die and you disintegrate in Earth can we call that Earth James?
So where is James really can you point where James is? Can you point to your nose your heart your feet... But you are pointing at flesh.... Not James.
I hope this answers your question.
So James Exist yes apparently hiding behind the bag of Flesh cells and Bones.
But James is a name we give to the body with the mind which existed.
James on the other hand is just a name... It Did not exist by itself.
I hope this helps ✌️
You can ask any questions you like I tried my best and my English is not good.😅
@@nyizaw8335 Yes but it is only a relative truth the ultimate turth is Tathagatagarba our Buddha nature which is our self wich is always present and alwas there. So in conclusion there is nither self nor non-self both cannot be. Both must be negated. If you like see some of my videos I explain this more deeper.
My guru told me..."Philosophers die confused and separate from the truth... by their own grasping minds..."
Yeah, but is normal let the seeker search, and go with his machete making his way through the jungle of information towards the truth.
And if something looks too thorny, it's better not to go there and keep looking.
David Hume, Scottish empiricist philosopher (1711-1776) says something similar: “For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception…. If any one, upon serious and unprejudic'd reflection thinks he has a different notion of himself, I must confess I can reason no longer with him. All I can allow him is, that he may be in the right as well as I, and that we are essentially different in this particular. He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and continu'd, which he calls himself; tho' I am certain there is no such principle in me.”
― David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature
Hume never seems to have asked himself what it is that is observing the perception.
@@robinharwood5044there is only observing but no observer
Wow, this video really made me think about the concept of self! It's amazing how Buddhist teachings delve into the nature of our identity and challenge us to question who we truly are. This thought-provoking inquiry into the self is so important in our fast-paced world. Thank you for sharing this enlightening story!
Brilliant!!! Such complex ideas explained so clearly! I think you’re a genius! Thank you!!!!
We’re an interdependent process. To ignore the grave and phenomenal responsibility that comes from that creates more suffering. True compassion is the key.
youre a process? ok,
im god
one of the best playlists i have come across for buddhism thank you
Alexander the Great how to became a Buddhist .
Excellent content my friend. Your content is amazing and makes me think a lot. Much love and support from India ❤
Thank you for following and encouraging my work, Ujjwal, it means a lot!
I have herd this axle teaching many times, I must say this is one of the most relevant examples I have listened to, what I perceive as "I" am humbled and must note that it aligns with modern science 2500 years later to recognize the perception of life as an illusion relieving suffering if recognized, thank you with humility kind sir.....
What a great video! I suspect there is another type of unconscious. For those familiar with machine learning, it is very similar to hidden layers. Basically, these are things that exist within our nervous system but are never directly presented to what we think of our consciousness. A good example of this is how our brains fill in our blind spot. It just happens automatically. We are not aware of it happening.
Very interesting story indeed, I have never heard this one before. Enjoyed the way it really simplifies the idea of the no-self teaching. Hope you can cover more interesting Buddhist stories.
Thank you! I first encountered this story when I was about 16 and it was the first time I heard about the no-self teaching (it gave me a bit of an existential crisis too!).
And yes, I intend to cover many more Buddhists stories and concepts in the future. If you’d like to hear another deep and meaningful parable, you could have a look at my latest video:
th-cam.com/video/O3UhgSOIUM4/w-d-xo.html
ATA kari Sutta seft soi
I had a problem when suffering depression and that was trying to understand if I am I or if I am nothing, if I was able to disprove life to myself I did not believe I was myself, but one thing I couldn’t disprove was the fact that I am thinking and I couldn’t think of not thinking meaning a have a self which is only the thought influenced by other means that is not my thought. I couldn’t understand the difference between reality and dreams at one point in my life and it was making my depression worse until I read a Scripture from philosopher Rene Descartes, cogito ergo sum Latin for I think there for I am. Or at least this helped me a bunch understanding my purpose in case someone needed it.
maybe you're not your thoughts either ;)
Love it. ( love it being a conventional term that does not last or to be found in any of skandas associated with the one who loves it)
Wow . Mind blowing ❤
Many thanks to the S2S patrons on Patreon: Tsvetina Ivanova , Arian Rasuli, @RMSounds , and Joshua Day. Your encouragement really makes a difference!
⭐ Support this channel: www.patreon.com/seeker2seeker
💰PayPal Donation: www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=28CCPBHAFUUX8
📨 Join the S2S newsletter: www.seekertoseeker.com/esoteric-circle/
Thank you for watching!
The suttas said non self instead of no self. In non self, all the 5 khandas of mind and body which we traditionally attribute to be self are actually not the self.
Thanks to your video, I finally understand the question 🙏 🙏 🙏
Alexander the Great how to became a Buddhist .
Ans: I am a combination of body and mind
Body:pancha tatwas as like water,fire,air, soil and light.
Mind:form, feeling, cognition, mental formation and consiusness.
I was talking to some scientific friends of mine about scientific progress that can make body parts regrow inside of the body so no more transplants would ever be necessary. When one body part dies, you can just grow another and no one will ever have to die.
Then we were quiet before one person said, "Would you still be yourself if every body part was replaced? When would you just be another person even if all the DNA and stem cell and blood type were still identical?"
Same thing with an antique car. If you have an old 1920 T Model Ford but all the individual parts were replaced with different T Model Ford parts, is it still the same car or is it now a different car?"
So what is the definition of self and what is a 1920 T Model Ford?
The old Ship of Theseus dilemma :) en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
@@seeker2seeker yep. I guess I am not the first person to ask when is a thing not a thing any more. Basically, when do we begin to exist and when do we end existence and how do we know if we exist or not?
Goes back to ancient philosophical question..."Who are we, anyway?"
I am a construct, like a completed story made up of words. I am not those words in any order but in a particular arrangement of the words.
Thanks!
There is also no self in science.
Neuroscientists will agree this matter with no hesitation.
I saw this European( may be) lady meditating in front of one huge Buddha deity inside one huge Buddha Temple in the Himalayas. She was deeply involved in the meditation, all alone. True inner peace comes from meditation. Om Namah Buddhay. 🙏🙏.
Alexander the Great how to became a Buddhist .
A great vdeo. >one should develop the buddhahood within oneself"
This guy made me pass my philosophy midterm
No one is hearing ,seeing or thinking ,there's just hearing , seeing and thinking .
And whenever you experience pain? Does no one suffer? Or does Herman suffer?
@@jessebexhill8017 There's no one eperiencing pain ,there's just pain .People have a wrong understanding of suffering ,suffering means that you think the pain should'nt be there .And to me that's the case right now , some days the pain here is intens due to a musscle diseas but no suffering .If the pain is to much i take a painkiller ,it'snot that i love pain .
@@hermansohier7643
Herman, if there's "no one" experiencing the pain, then who is taking the pain medicine? Who is the prescription written out for? For "No One?"
@@jessebexhill8017 This is so simple ,all what's happening is the impersonal functioning of the totality .There's no self involved .So no one is taking a painkiller and the prescription is for Herman but that doesn't mean there's a self .Herman is a name for a bunch of thoughts and actions based on conditioning and up todate conditioning .But that's something you shouldn't believe ,it's no religion .Instead you should find out for your self .You can start with looking for an I .Were can you find the self or I? A human is an object who thinks it's the subject and that's why he's suffering .
@@hermansohier7643
Herman, if the Russians captured you, and tortured you for 10 hours straight, would you suffer excruciating pain and possible death?
Very good. Surely both the monk and the king are both right. It's a question of terms.
Nice story
This Buddhist analogy was developed to defeat the Nachiketa analogy of the self/Atma (a Upanishadic Story). In response, Advaitins developed Gold-Ornament analogy of describe Atma/Self/Consciouness.
Actually Swamy Sarvapriyananda has written his thesis in respond to Chandrakirti analogy during his time in the Harvard divinity School.
This analogy was given to Greek King Menander in the 2nd Century BCE (a historic person not mythological person like Nachiketa). I think all the Upanishads were written only after Buddha. In fact, none knew about the Upanishads and the rests until the 6th century when Sankaracharya gave his commentaries. During Buddha time, Brahamanism was just getting shaped but not yet documented. That is why, Buddha recalls Only three Vedas but not Upanishads and other Hindu scriptures.
Read thru history, all Vedas and Upanishad are in Sanskrit ( Devnagri). Meanwhile Pali, Dhamma, Greek idicts predates Sanskrit. When Buddha was teaching and when his treaties were translated there was no Sanskrit. Unfortunately, I am seeing a growing trend from Indian hardcore Hindus to rewrite history.
@@Tsechen287😂😂😂 aiyaaah!! Pseudobuddhists are rewriting history again..
You guys are so absorbed in self-arrogance how will yaa get nirvana ..by eating pork or dog meat??😂
C'mon..the first ever grammatical encyclopedia on any language was ashtadhyaayi a sanskrit grammar book.
Rig Veda is the oldest book on indo-european language and Pali is also an Indo-European language for gods's sake..
Even the place where Buddha was born ie.lumbini is under kapilavastu ,a sage who was known as the father of Sankhya Yog which is Gautama's basic pillar..
U thought enlightenment just came from the clouds like the prophets got testaments in a burning fire of heaven
.. really???
There are multiple evidences of sanskrit being one of the oldest language and Tamil being the oldest of all Indian languages..
😂😂
@@Tsechen287 devnagri is script , sanskrit is language , saraswathi river is referred extensively in vedas , if budha came before vedas , we sould have found saraswathi in budhist literature , and budhists would have documented it drying up.
@@sreedharakakani809 if Vedas came before Buddha, why is it only written in Sanskrit ( Devnagri ) ?
Thanks
All are connected: one can't survive as a separate unit.
Maybe you can't.
Subtle I know, but "who am I?" encourages in me a story. I am a father, a worker, and more concepts. The question that strikes at the heart of it more for me is, "what am I?" To this I get more verbs...then we're off to emptiness vastly filled.
I'm just an experiencing 👌🏻❤🙏🏻
When I meditate, stripping away all the thoughts and sensations, I don't experience No-Self but the True-Self (i.e. the silent observer).
I lik3 the pictures
We are the emptiness
If there is no self, who is making that determination?
My understanding of this isn’t perfect but here’s what I’ve been able to cobble together through studying the Buddha’s teachings. So there’s no separate self “the delusion” but there is “awareness”and there is an “us” as in the human race and other beings that share that same awareness. So you could say the awareness had a feeling that led to a thought that led to a bunch of thoughts that cobbled together into a delusion of a separate independent / isolated sense which led to all greed and hatred which in turn has produced all the suffering that anyone has experienced.
So I guess you could say we made that determination! 😂
Silence made that determination
@@collinsharrelson6887 That's not what Buddhism teaches at all.
@@kroneexe How is it not?
Please if anyone can help me i would like to understand it. I didnt get what the no self is
A body without a self is called a corpse!
Without a self the body is motionless.
Same apply to the chariot, without a charioteer the chariot can't move!
That’s not what the Buddha taught. There is no self to move anything, the things just moved because or external temporary causes
Hey i have a question
I think buddha was peeling an onion and said that the onion was nowhere to be found as reference to self
However it is all the accumulation that makes the self
We or buddha was only taking individual item refering to self but not the whole accumulation
So my question is am i right or buddha and how?plz reply.
Hi there, and thank you for your thoughtful question!
The no-self teaching is one of the deepest insights of the Buddha and it has been further debated and elaborated by a long tradition of Buddhist scholars. So any short summary of it would be an oversimplification and one must not be too quick to think he ‘gets it’ or to refute it.
That being said, the Buddha would probably like your comparison of the self to an onion as that would represent the different layers a person is composed of. However, he would probably argue that when we say ‘onion’ we don’t mean ‘a collection of layers’ and when we say ‘self’ we don’t mean ‘a bundle of form, feelings, perception, mental formations, and consciousness’ (the 5 aggregates according to the Buddha).
In both cases we mean someTHING that is in some way independent, has its own essence, and persists through time. (Like what we feel when we say ‘I’). It is this latter feeling we have of the reality of selves and things that the Buddha believes we must become free of.
If you want to learn more, you can have a look at the video I did on this: th-cam.com/video/uCldjIVqxAU/w-d-xo.html
What Proof Of Self Exist? is the question to begin the journey. And at the end of the journey, you will understand. ❤
Who song?
Finely, I know who I am, I am a convectional term! I am so happy I am breaking up into pieces! And those pieces are breaking up too. What a wonderful world it is, and it is breaking up!
🙏🏼
I have two problems with this story. (I am very familiar with it.). The first is that the monk does not give a clear definition of the self that he is denying. The second is that he acknowledges the existence of consciousness. If any thing can be classed as a self, surely consciousness is that thing. So it seems to me that the story is denying something or others, but affirming the self.
Look up ‘Buddha-Womb’ or ‘Buddha-Nature’. His video on emptiness goes into detail. Consciousness may be simply one of the 5 Skhandas that make up our idea of Self.
@@joshdude1367 Your idea of the Self, maybe. But Buddha nature-as the underlying pure consciousness- seems pretty much like my idea of a self.
Miri Albahari has an interesting take in her book “Analytical Buddhism : the two-tiered illusion of self “.
(For a non-Buddhist view of consciousness as Self, might I suggest the first few chapters of my own “The Survival of the Self “?)
The problem is that most people don't just see consciousness as the self. People feel like they are "having" a conscious experience. They feel that they are an unchanging, persisting experiencer in addition to the experience. I talk to people and ask them where they are in their body, and they say "I'm inside my brain, behind my face". But when I ask "where inside the brain?" They say they can't identify which part, and that they are the whole brain. And yet they don't identify as a brain, they say they *have* a brain, and if I were to show them an MRI scan, they would say "that's my brain". Well if that's *your* brain, then where are you?
This is the point of the story. Our conscious experience is comprised of a careful orchestra of thoughts, feelings and sensations that come and go as they please. It is when we identify with this stimuli we suffer. It is when we mistakenly believe we are the "thinker" of our thoughts we ask ourselves "why am I thinking horrible thoughts? Why do I keep deciding to be anxious? Why am I fantasising about hurting that person? I'm terrible."
To be mindful of these thoughts and recognise them as impermanent and fleeting is what brings suffering to an end.
@@richardmccabe2392Are you taking a Humean line that there is nothing but a bundle of experiences and thoughts? If so, consciousness does not exist as anything but a property of the experiences. But the story presents consciousness as something in itself, not as a property of other things.
It seems to me that consciousness is the witness of the experiences. As such, it is continuous and unified. That seems very much the sort of thing that I think of as a self. But I don’t know what the monk means by a self.
@@robinharwood5044 Ive been thinking deeply about these topics myself. Have you read the tipitaka? If you admit that consciousness "witnesses" the experiences then you "thingify" consciousness... and i agree that view has some merit as long as we grade quality of consciousness depending on ability. Take for instance someone who is drunk compared to someone who has worked out for an hour or meditated for an hour...
and i just realized... this gradation of experience - as in changing of consciousness - is the proof that not even consciousness is static or unchanging...
the way this is dealt with in the sutras as i recall is to give the example of someone in deep sleep. where is consciousness then? and even if it never were to disappear, it will never stay still.
The Buddha was right.
But the totality of the parts is what constitutes the chariot... just as the totality of senses, organs of action, perception, consciousness makes the "I"... yet the witness of all this is the self in actuality. When there is nothing to witness there is void. The yogis and Buddhists only have a semantic argument.... words cannot express reality....
The chariot is in the specific configuration of all the pieces
🙏
❤
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
My 'I' is shattered
This person has never heard this story before. 👍🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Alexander the Great how to became a Buddhist .
If your head hurts by thinking about this subject I would direct you to how the Tibetan Buddhism dealt with it. It's called conventional truth and ultimate truth.
There's alot of nonsense going on in the boeddhism world. As prayer flags and prayer wheels. It shows tibet has nothing understood of boeddha's teachings.
This reminds me of another story.
A monk came before a king, and the king said to him: "I am a king and have taken of all the pleasures the earth has to offer. You who claim to be so wise, show me something that can still astonish me."
The monk remained silent and simply handed the king a piece of paper that read: "sHE beLIEveD."
The king read it and was furious. He asked: "Do you take me for a fool, oh monk, that you insult me in this way?"
The monk however, remaining perfectly calm, replied: "Now read only the upper case letters."
After doing so, the king broke down in tears. When he could finally collect himself, he bowed down to the monk.
And then everyone clapped.
Huh?
LOLOLOLOL. this is so cringe I am not sure if I should up or down vote
🤣🤣
The chariot IS somewhere to be found though. We all know it. A part by itself or a pile of parts are not a chariot, but when they all work together, they are a chariot. Let’s not BS ourselves.
And by extension there is a self.
Alexander the Great how to became a Buddhist .
then there is no “chariot” only the assemblage of the various components that is taken to be one. There is no core “chariot” to be found. The same applies for the self
@@kigurumii you can say this about literally anything and you could break everything down to their atomic structure and say “look it’s only protons neutrons and electrons.” But does that mean nothing exists? If you’re a dedicated Buddhist, yes. But it’s bullshit. Things DO exist. I’m typing on a phone right now - does the phone not exist because it’s just an assembly of components? No. It exists. I carry it with me everywhere I go. You probably do the same. Why carry it if it doesn’t exist? The thing is, a phone, just like a chariot, is a concept more then a specific thing. It’s an object that performs a certain function and you know that if you dropped your phone in a lake you wouldn’t say “oh well it didn’t exist anyway” you’d say something like “fuck! There goes 700 bucks!”
Buddhism is a denial of existence. I get it that this experience on planet earth is mysterious and we can’t really say if any of it is ‘real’ but to deny that we are experiencing something here is silly. I am in fact experiencing something right now. I am in a room filled with objects and those objects have names and this experience is undoubtably happening. Even if it’s just a high definition dream, I am definitely experiencing it.
@@adammiller4389 “nothing exists”is a view rejected by buddhism, another view that is rejected is the view of
“things-in-themselves”, the idea of immutable essences or things having an inpedendant existence that exists by themselves by their own virtue , which also applies to the concept of a self, a soul, etc. for the sake of convenience, we say they exist conventionally but ultimately? No.
The one has watched this video.
The obvious leap from this is to think: "what is a human? is it legs, freet, hands, arma, chest, head or chin? Separate or combined? Or something else, than comes together as they go together? Is that just a word used to refer to a thing?"
Another example of is that of the elephant and many men who touched its different parts.
The Buddha answered "The are you?" with "I'm awake."
I'm sorry but am I misinterpreting something? When he says if you pile up all these parts does that not equal a chariot? Same way if you piled up experience you equal a self?
Yeah it equals to self. But considering that self as permanent and made of single material is what denied in this story.
He meant if you gather up all the parts into a pile without attaching them properly, there is still no chariot. In the same way, the sense of self requires sensory stimuli and mental factors like feelings, thoughts and intentions to act in harmony to create the illusion of a constant entity.
"Ship of Thesus"
The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned from Crete had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their places, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.
- Plutarch, Life of Theseus 23.1
Unconnected people expressing the same or similar ideas in different parts of the world.
Meander 1 was an Indo-Greek king so is there a connection? Did Plutarch somehow get this information of the ancient Indo-Greeks ? I dont know...
Perhaps, it was individually expressed.
Trying to find the self in the body is like trying to find sound in an instrument.
Let us take the guitar as an example: there is no particular entity called 'sound' to be found in the strings, the body, the neck, the headstock; nor even to be found in the musician plucking the strings. But does that mean that there is absolutely no such thing as sound? It is not that there is no such thing as sound, but that it would be an ignorant misconception to believe that there is a phenomenon known as 'sound' residing within the instrument.
Similarly, there is no such thing as a 'self' to be found residing in the body. But does that mean that there is absolutely no such thing as a self?
There is that which IS. There is that which experiences consciousness, thoughts, perceptions, and feelings. That it cannot be found does not mean that it absolutely does not exist, but rather that it needs to be known as it truly is, free of all ignorant misconceptions. For a certainty, there are no such things as individual beings. No being has ever made themselves.
Thus, the problem is not that there is absolutely no self. The problem is clinging to this body, this consciousness, this mind, as 'this is me; this is mine; this is my self'. The problem is not knowing one's own true self-nature as it really is.
My answer to the question you propose is: I does not have the slightest idea!
An alternative answer is: You does not know please ask Mr. Who.
the I is the self, its the source and the source is the self.
I am sure it was me watching this video, not my aunt!
Just because a chariot is made up of parts doesn't mean there's no chariot. It can clearly do what a pile of parts cannot. Unless it's just not being explained well, I feel like the concept of no self ignores this. Even this story seems to try to ignore this. A very logical response the king could have made if he wasn't written to be the butt of this story is 'if put together correctly the parts do make up a chariot and function as a chariot. You can pretend there is no chariot, but you can clearly see and use it.
I can buy no-self arguing that individuals aren't that special - that if we delve into our minds we can all find the same thing. Perhaps we're all just I's, just chariots, but we're still undeniably functioning chariots, not merely an illusion but clearly more than the sum of our parts.
Love ❤️ this ! Om shanti
Thank you!
I think exactly the self in Advaita Vedanta is ultimately the same that no self in Budddhism.
And if not... what is that mind that is reborn for Buddhism? If it is reborn there is permanence...
If there is permanent mind why dont you have momories of your past lives?
@@kavinduadhikari5881 The only permanent thing is the witness consciousness, which has no attributes other than witnessing.
The mind is one more sense, and memory is part of it.
We will be reborn again and again unless we attain nirvana. After nirvana there is no rebirth. If something remains for too long that doesn't mean it is permanent, for ex: the Himalayas. They will remain for much longer in future but they are not permanent. Likewise our mind which is in the samsara will exist until that being attains nirvana. To buddha nothing is permanent. Everything is subjected to change. If there is a permanent thing in this universe, then it can't interact with the universe. If it interacts, then it is subjected to change making it an impermanent one. We are also subjected to change.
@@SussyBaka-uq6nf I don't know then why Buddhists believed in the anatman, if the atman is almost the same. The atman will stop being reborn until he is freed and meets Moksa. Then he will unite with what he really is, and from which until then he has believed himself to be separate, Brahman. So I don't see much sense in this effort to differentiate itself from the atman on the part of Buddhism. Even in a certain way I could see Nirvana as something very similar to Brahman, both difficult to explain or understand, but they point to something, if not the same, very, very similar.
@@JuanPreciado87 Anatman or anatta means no-self. There is nothing in this world to grab as self, even our consciousness. When we acknowledge anatta, we will become enlightened which is Nirvana. Which is opposite to moksha which is acknowledging the true self i.e. identifying soul as a manifestation of brahman. There is no eternal thing such as brahman in Buddhism. Also you have to know that the Advaita vedanta is influenced by buddhism with maintaining its core beliefs in hinduism that's why many of its teachings are similar to Buddhism.
I am the driver of the chariot!😊😎
That's your profession so who are you?
Alexander the Great how to became a Buddhist .
I just want to point out the differing meanings of self, to refer variously to the persona and to the eternal self or soul. The word Nagasena is denying is the persona self, puggalo. The word for soul self is atta/atman. Nowhere in Buddhist scripture is there the statement that there is no atman, no soul. Anatta, 'non-self', as a doctrine is about disentanglement from identification with the unreal, as characterized by impermanence, suffering, and annata, non you. The recurrent teaching is, "You see those forms, feelings, perceptions, etc. out there external to you? They're not you, you can put them down as empty." Note that is not equivalent to saying there is no self, or no you ultimately. To say, "This personage that you know by the name of such and such is a temporary construction only and not really me" is not a statement that there is no Atman, it's just a clever way of talking owing to a transcendent perspective.
Hello
I saw this text in a novel and i heard it's a buddhism teaching
I searched for the meaning of it and i didn't find anything to it the text is:
Without a sense of self, without a sense of person; to be detached of all living things, detached of the sense of time. Void is the red skull and white bones, skin and flesh!’
Is it relevant to this video and your comment ?
Do you have any idea about the meaning? Can you explain it to me? Or is it all bullshit ?
Buddhist scripture contains narrative writing where events are related, it includes explanations of doctrine, usually presented as dialogue, and it includes verse, where either the Buddha or someone who has just had a realization will speak in verse praising the doctrine or declaring how wonderful it is to have knowledge of and abide in the dharma. This is an example of verse, and what it's saying is a common refrain in Buddhist teaching, that the body, a temporary construction of bones, flesh and karma, is not a permanent abode, is not to be identified with as a fundamental identity, and that when this perspective is achieved it is joyous. The body is constructed out of natural elements and various specialized parts, all of which are subject to decay and suffering, therefore there is no refuge, no permanence or rest when abiding in the body. Likewise, the psychosomatic self is impermanent and constructed and subject to change and cannot be a permanent abode. This is constituted of materiality, perception, volition, karma, and individuated consciousness, or the five skandhas. When the term non-self, anatta, is used in the scriptures, it is used as a description: material form, that is not self, perception, that is not self, volition, not self, even the karmic currents that drive your becoming and even led you into birth, these are non self. Even the personal consciousness which is the vehicle for all your worldly experiences, this is non self. And in this false association, the whole mass of suffering arises. The experiencer is not the same as that which is experienced, and central to Buddhist teaching is that anything with constituent parts and characterized by impermanence is not the experiencer, and the experiencer can ultimately liberate themselves from anything that isn't part of oneself, even if that externality for the moment feels like it is inside one's body or head. When the term anatta/non-self is used in dialogue it is usually explaining this. When the term non-self is used in verse it usually says something like, 'Great is this doctrine of non self, allowing me to see this body as a pile of bones and this person as a candle flame flickering in the wind!' Or something. A lot of people, Buddhist or otherwise, take the term non-self out of its doctrinal context and declare, 'The Buddhists believe there is no self, no eternal soul, and nothing exists!' But this is not the position of the scriptures themselves. The soul is never described objectively in Buddhism, so that the mind doesn't think of oneself as an external object. But the way to 'liberation of the soul' is described subjectively in Buddhism, like it's something you yourself are caught in right now and have to put in the work to do.
@@HshshsUzushsh-ew6dzAlso, the term 'void' should be understood as shorthand for 'void of any permanent characteristics or permanent substantial selfhood'. A snowball isn't really a thing, it's just water in a temporary state come together because of various external influences. But while the snowball is a snowball you can still get hit in the face with it. So it's void, in that it has no intrinsic being other than the forces and elements than sustain its form, but it's not void in the sense that if you only think about it hard enough you can make yourself immune to snowballs when they are being thrown at you. But if you wanted to you could melt that snowball and turn it back into water. And I suppose if you wanted to you could split the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Well you can do this with the aggregated forms that make up the ego entity, i.e what you or I conventionally refer to as ourselves. How do you do this? Repeated, sustained mindfulness and right effort until total release of tension, desire and craving. Very hard to do, because it's the opposite of doing. But when done, there is only 'the void' or 'emptiness' which is synonymous with unblemished wisdom, contentedness and bliss.
Our habitual conditioned assumption that a thought requires a thinker or pain requires a pain receiver is blocking other possibilities. In other words, our mind is made up, and we already know the answer before we ask the question. Ego won't put the question in an unbiased way. It’s ego's job to always assume itself to be real. Like Pinochio, it wants to be a real boy, a real girl, a real person and not just stories about said person. We are self authored characters deeply immersed in our own story! End the story and see what is left, I dare you! 😅
Because of Free will, we create the "I".
We are combination of different dimensions: Consciousness, Biological, Spiritual,
We are just Avatar in a game, purpose is to Experience the Game
I can answer your question, but I will not spoil it for everybody else !
People go their entire lifetimes searching for themselves. Who am I? The answer is just that. There is no I.
There's no me that is watching this video, only aliveness
Who watched this video? Obviously I did. However, to quote Ilona Ciunaite, ‘The Word “I” is a Tool for Communication- Nothing More. There is no such separate entity or self who is in charge behind the word “I”. “I” is a thought-a thought that is useful in a conventional way when communicating. It is not “I” who is communicating. It is not “I” who is reading these words. It is not “I” who is writing this either. When I say “I”, it is meant as a tool of communication in the form of language. It is not referring to the individual me who is thinking and writing.’ -Ilona Ciunaite, Liberation Unleashed
If the self does not exist, who or what reincarnates ?
“There is no self” is the granddaddy of fake Buddhist quotes. It has survived so long because of its superficial resemblance to the teaching on anatta, or not-self, which was one of the Buddha’s tools for putting an end to clinging. Even though he neither affirmed nor denied the existence of a self, he did talk of the process by which the mind creates many senses of self-what he called “I-making” and “my-making”-as it pursues its desires.
In other words, he focused on the karma of selfing. Because clinging lies at the heart of suffering, and because there’s clinging in each sense of self, he advised using the perception of not-self as a strategy to dismantle that clinging. Whenever you see yourself identifying with anything stressful and inconstant, you remind yourself that it’s not-self: not worth clinging to, not worth calling your self.
Who are you watching video ....
An object called video ,a subject called consciousness operating through eyes and ears is watching, like that chariot being called a chariot ....that consciousness has many names ,Witness, observer ,I ,false ego ,atman, experiencer ,Maya....such names depending upon where it holding on to at a given time ...
Appearing in many forms and disappearing into no form ,many times of day and night ....consciously and unconsciously...
The game is to not let it wonder into objects but to stay as witnessing itself only ...ie being witnesser of witnessing...an effort is required until here ,call it Sadhana or practice ,then with time it becomes a habit and later needs no effort ...and let it be to whatever it has to be ....
Easy said ...
Ask the seeker what it is ....
If he answers ,he is lost ...
If he doesn't, he is mystery now ...
So who is lost here ...
I to begin with ....
As I am no one then the electrical energy that was used to watch was not only wasted energy and wasted time but it was done so by no one and has not been watched nor responded to at all.
To mitigate confusion, it should be called non-self, not no-self. Non-self does not mean there is an absence of a self. It just means that there isn't a permanent self that exists independent from the body. Instead, it means there is only a transient self, constantly changing from moment to moment. It is this transient self that you are mistaken to be eternal and in total control of the body and the self itself. The transient self is inseparable from the body. It is an illusion of the mind, and it is not always in total control of the body nor itself.
The chariot exists only in relation to its components being in a specific configuration. Like a burning flame consuming fuel to stay lit, as long as your mind is able to conceive it, the self arises with your mental processes and evolves as long as you are alive, shaped by the world around and within you.
Clinging to the self or no self is unskillful and unwise, as both are wrong views of the reality of the self.
I could be wrong, but this is my take on this idea of non-self. Thank you for the video!
who could even cling and be unskillful then?
@@LarsTaunusthe khandas that delusionally identified itself as “who”
@@kigurumii That would actually imply that the khandas have some sort of consciousness to misidentify themselves as a who.
@@LarsTaunus not really
Again there only “processes” but no “process-or”
@@kigurumii it really doesn't explain anything though. What is the use of meditation in that case? Who should meditate? Why would the Buddha recommend meditation? To whom? Who would be liberated? Processes happen, Khandas come together and disintegrate and at death there is complete disintegration---so what use in spending countless hours in meditation? What use in ethical living? Just processes happening after all.
There is no self. The I is just a concept created by the brain and society we live in so we can fit in.
I am someone who dislikes how creepy the ending of this video is.
superb, but of course, there is no channel....
What are you?
You're right usually wrongly
Your Buddha nature is your true permanent self outside the 5 aggregates and not subject to the three characteristics
Alexander the Great how to became a Buddhist .
Alexander the Great how to became a Buddhist .
"Form, ... feeling, ... perception, ... [mental] fabrications, ... consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.'...
"Thus, monks, any form, ... feeling, ... perception, ... fabrications, ... consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
What Proof Of Self Exist?
This question is the key. For those who doesn't understand the message. 👍
Stupid is as stupid does. We are not machines.
Keep going some more...
Thank you Mitch! It makes a big difference seeing someone following and encouraging my work!
Warum ist,bleibt und war der Mensch immer der gleiche Ursprung in der NATUR ?!? Energie oder ???
Is it "I" who is eating this bread?
Wait until we get to the idea of emptiness… not only is there no ‘I’, but there is no ‘bread’ either!
Maya, baby.
yes! it is YOU an individual living person
@@seeker2seeker 😆😃🤣
laughing buddha
I am watching this, but I am a conditioned thing. Once those conditions cease, I will no longer be watching this.
No part of the chariot is chariot = no chariot
No part of the self is self = no self
No conventional term is existing on its own
Work or realisation mediate and observe talking will give you nothing but messed up mind.
body+ mind = I
but
i am not the body
and
i am not the mind
of course you are! to say otherwise is Maya! you are your body AND your soul. you are an individual existing person. when your MORTAL body dies your IMMORTAL soul lives on until the Last Day when she is re-united with a physical but transformed body.
@marcokite
How can you possibly know that? This is clearly nothing more than a speculation
I is engaged in a body
and mind is a mediator
no speculation whatsoever
and no maya.
It seems the “self” is not a physical thing, therefore you can not point to it.
this story is an old chestnut and shows the ignorance of the monk and the king. basically the monk says something stupid, the king makes an excellent, intelligent response, the monk says something irrelevant, the king makes another good answer then the monk sinks even lower into his ignorance and lo! the king is convinced...I doubt it. - pretty stupid to compare the soul/body complex to a chariot and really dumb not to comprehend the FORM of the chariot and its component parts. And the question at the end lacks intelligence too, do you only believe in things you can POINT at? that's pretty childish. I (please note the 'I') don't mean to be rude brother.
I totally agree with your view
The comparison between a sentient being and a non sentient thing is no way acceptable.
The question of Who am I? is already taken up by eastern sages long back by a simple and powerful way. For that they just divided the existence into two catagory.
The Knower and the Known. So here you are the knower and the rest of the world is known to you. In this story the chariots is not a sentient thing so it can't be known anything.
But to shift your identity from known to knower needs a lot of efforts.
So your true identity your essential nature is not your body because your body known to you, not your mind because it known to you. Not anything else.
" I am the Self, the witness, the interpreter, the Self beyond the self image. I am the Absolute." 🙏
You really didn’t understand anything. There is no self, there is no absolute, everything is transitory, the illusion of self is just a temporary combination of things that will separate and disintegrate in no time
@@karaiwonder who is aware of thoughts that go on ceaselessly in your head. That is the witness I am referring to. The illusion is the ego. That is the false self. Explaining to you, is like a zero sum activity.
@@wesleygovender6579 i get what you mean, that's consciousness. it's just another skandha.
@@betos-08What experiences "Nirvana"?
@@wesleygovender6579We are the "HIGHER self"! Yes...after the false ego and suffering is extinguished; we are that "Nirvana"...the EVERYTHING
But who is running the chariot?
It's the self!
Alexander the Great how to became a Buddhist .
where?
@@kigurumii
in the world
@@Narasimha_TheSher but where?
@@kigurumii wherever the chariot goes
Cosmos is nothing. Any self identity is illusion, no separate self. All is one =0
The chariot doesn't have a consciousness, thus the difference. You are that very awareness not no self
Alexander the Great how to became a Buddhist .
Nice .. but of course their is an “ l” the “ l” that Buddhism seeks to liberate and end the cycle of incarnation … and why is that we should seek to end it ? It’s only opinion and philosophising that states we should , must .. ..