A Real Self in Early Buddhism? The Potthapada Sutta
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ส.ค. 2024
- Did the Buddha ever suggest there was a way to find a real sort of self? We'll look to the Poṭṭhapāda Sutta for an answer to this question. There we will see an interesting dialogue where the Buddha delves into a discussion of personal continuity over time, and a notion of our "acquired self". An incisive simile makes the Buddha's surprising conclusion clear.
📙 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.
✅ Video:
Playlist on Self and Non-self in Buddhism: • Self and Non-self in B...
✅ Sutta mentioned:
suttacentral.n... (NB: Sujato has a nonstandard translation of the key term “attapaṭilābha”, which is usually translated “acquisition of a self” or “acquired self” rather than “reincarnation”. See Piya Tan’s paper below).
✅ Paper referenced:
www.theminding...
Facebook: / onlinedharmainstitute
Twitter: / dougsdharma
00:00 Intro
02:17 Background of the Poṭṭhapāda Sutta
05:09 Citta the son of the elephant trainer
06:40 The attapaṭilābha or “acquired self”
10:22 How to understand the “acquired self”: Buddha’s questions
13:22 Citta’s answer to the Buddha’s questions
15:36 The Buddha’s simile
❤️ 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
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
Aziz Rahman
Olivia Otter
Carl Lennartson
Esteban Malebrán
Note: as an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. 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
This actually makes so much sense. I've been struggling to understand the idea of "no self". I see how I'm made up of the same matter as everything else and an in a constant state of change, but how can one really say there is no self? There is definitely something which is me, and that makes "no self" difficult to comprehend. By acknowledging that there is a self but that it is temporary and constantly changing, that actually makes sense to me.
That's right, it's not so much that there's "no self" as that each thing we experience is "not self" or "non-self".
@@DougsDharma Consubstantiality is the metaphysical logical term for this "insue"...
@@DougsDharma this is not the Self... thats is not the Self... the origens of the data base for who has Good Memory... you need to denied the object in the same time when you synthesizes your subjective, djanna, meditation and so on... to know the real Self... epistemology is the non-self because the "Cheeta", the Soul, the Self is not an object... Plato calls the Retroduction or Reminiscence, or the Nous, the Abduction Logics aplies on Theology and Cosmologic simultaneously, ontology and epistemology at the same time and Going beyond.... The real Self is the Lógos. (S is not A, S is not B, S is not C, so S not exists? NO!!! What proves that {the} things are separate?!?!)
@@DougsDharma The Self in phenomenal world is the Bodisatva: Buda is the guardian of this wisdom. (EDIT: And the meaning of wisdom is to overcome the suffering that comes from ignorance of not knowing about the own Self... Pure Delphi Oracle... hehehe Attapatilãbha anatta = the ego is not the Self)
@@DougsDharma
Going straight to the point: it seems that a lot of people out there are confusing Attapatilãbha with Anatta applying only aristotelian logic to the investigation, not platonic Lógos.... (Pythagoras has a brilliant answer for that...)
In everyday life I try to practice with all these notions: non self, emptiness and impermanence and I find that I’m starting not to take everything so seriously because feelings, situations, states of mind will eventually change anyway. Not worth clinging or judging too much 😊
Thank you for your wonderful videos! With metta from France 🙏 Nadija
Thank you for the comment Nadija! 🙏
I think a useful analogy of the acquired, impermanent self would be the candle flame. It is real in the present moment, and yet it is created from moment to moment from the hot gases, fed by the wax in the wick, etc...Likewise our self is fed with social concepts, feelings, sensations, body shape, that change more or less as time goes by. Thanks for this great video Doug!
You're very welcome Kenneth. Yes, absolutely: the candle flame is a simile the Buddha himself used.
Another great video, Doug! We appreciate your clarification of the Pali terms especially. Keep up the great work!
My pleasure! 🙏😊
What I got from this video is that trying to find a permanent and unchanging self is a fruitless endeavor.
Yes, absolutely!
Fantastic video! Potthapada Sutta is one of my favorites in the Digha Nikaya. Was hoping you'd do a video on it. Thank you!
Happy to do so Luke!
Wow, THANK YOU for this exploration on the self, Doug. I value how you work at connecting to the early teachings, as you do here. I don't discount later tradition, but I want to appreciate how it all started. So much time-culture-language separates us from those early days, yet people haven't changed. Sometimes I wonder which is the undiscovered country that I am trying to visit: myself or the ancient past.
Yes exactly so Susan, it's always amazing how much similarity we have to people who lived so long ago and far away.
I have been contemplating impermanence and the concept of non-self since the passing of my brother a few weeks ago, so this video happened in great timing! Wonderful explanation! Thank you for the clarity ❤
It's my pleasure Juni, and condolences for the loss of your brother. 🙏
Doug, I'm so inspired by your obvious mission to dig out the meaningful truths of the buddhas teachings to get to the real truth.
But I think there is more to story, on the part where the Buddha is asking "is perception one thing and the self another?" He is implying that there is a self other than the gross, mind and formless. That the self is other than those things.
This was eye-opening. I'm not very familiar with Buddism but from a personal perspective this video was extremely educational and helpful.
Since quite some time I'm struggling with my sense of self, my identity. Especially right now as I'm transitioning from being a university student to a full-time employee. I'm having trouble to "feel like myself" lately. Clinging to my present student self doesn't work because it's already changing. At the same time I cannot identify with my future role as an employee yet. In search of feeling connected to myself I turned to memories from childhood and youth but it feels so far away, almost like another life.
The idea that our self is constantly changing and means something different in different life periods is relieving. How I interpret it, it's natural that I feel lost and confused right now, and that's not a problem. Nothing is wrong with me, I'm not "losing myself". I'm just changing shapes as everyone and everything around us continuously does.
Great video and channel! :)
That's a great insight, Stephie, seeing how your sense of self changes as you transition from one period to another in your life. Thanks for your thoughts!
Really interesting topic and great delivery of these complex ideas. I was exposed to the idea of no self early in my life, but I didn't understand it properly, and I think that misunderstanding actually caused me a lot of suffering. I thought it was wrong to acquire a strong sense of self, and that denial ultimately led to some serious mental health problems and a general lack of direction or purpose in my life.
Now, I understand that the acquired self is a necessary vehicle and a catalyst for the manifestation of the true nature of our being, which is something like love. One of my teachers described the ego as similar to the flesh of a fruit or a seed. The seedling can't thrive without that initial boot provided by the flesh; but, after time, the nutrients are expended, and there is no longer a need for them, because the plant is strong enough to draw its nourishment directly from the environment.
Yes exactly so Parker. The Buddha actually talks of a self many, many times in the early texts. The ground of our practice is oriented around bettering our selves in various ways. Eventually we will learn to give up these ideas of a firm self, but we need them to orient as we practice.
Came running! Always a great talk☺️
Hey thanks, Bear!
Thank you, Doug, You are doing a very good job clarifying these confusions. Please take a break once in a while and enjoy yourself.
Thanks Pasquale, I'll keep that in mind! 🙏😊
Splendid video! Your initial concern is of course not completely unjustified, but you manage to present the topic in the most comprehensible way I can imagine. Thanks a lot! 🥛
Regarding the last quote of this video, I think it would make sense to also refer to your (first) video about the two truths.
😊🙏🏻
Yes, so much of the dharma interrelates in these ways! 🙏😊
Very good explain Buddhism to beginners I like buddha thought
🙏😊
Good video. This is so interesting about the religion/philosophy we call Buddhism. I read my first few books on Buddhism around age 16/17, and thought i had it figured out pretty well. Overtime i started to meditate, read about it, explored different ways, etc .A few decades later , i realized there is still so much i still don't know.
Yes it's a very deep tradition.
This is a good one, now you are on the right track!
Thank you, Doug. I am a beginner student and your channel has been a tremendous resource!
Glad to help, Brandon!
The real self is Buddha nature.
Buddha nature is Egolessness(emptiness) = Compassion(loving kindness).
Our real nature is Loving kindness(compassion) and this compassion come from egolessness (Emptiness).
🙏🙂
A great explanation of this subject Doug, something that has fascinated me for some time and the confusion about this in much of Mahayana Buddhism in particular. But what I like most is the skill of the Buddha in his ability to make clear very difficult ideas. You also have this ability.
Very kind of you to say John, but I think there's no comparison between his skill and mine! I'm just a beginner. 😄
Great video.My view is that buddhas teaching have two truths,mundane and supramundane truths.I would refer it as Classical and Quantum Mechanic truths in physics.Both are truths at their own level.however,supramundane truths is beyond thinking and logic and the intuitive or bare awareness comes to realise it experientially in mindfullness meditation.Just as buddha gave two different answers when asked whether is there a GOD because the person who asked these questions have different preconcieved views .Have a nice day.🙂
Yes, thanks Johnny. I did a couple of videos on the Two Truths of Buddhism. The first one is here: th-cam.com/video/qL_sspJzQx8/w-d-xo.html
Great point, we can get some idea of what the Buddha meant by Anatta through the mundane explanation, but we'll only get it when we see what he was talking about for ourselves. (Supramundane)
@@Maarten8867 agree,his sutras are road maps but we have to meditate and realised it ourselves.if not,its no use at all.🙂
Thanks for this interesting video - again the changing, impermanent "self" as conventional usage and ultimately there is no persisting 'self' may be the precursor for the the doctrine of two-truths developed in the Abhidhammic conception of conventional reality (sammuti-sacca) and ultimate reality (paramattha-sacca).
Yes, I discussed a bit of that in my earlier video on the doctrine of two truths: th-cam.com/video/qL_sspJzQx8/w-d-xo.html
Buddhism helped me with bewilderment and depression the freedom is great
That's wonderful to hear!
A lot of what you've said makes sense but after watching several videos about Buddhism I feel more lost than anything. It took me years going from an atheist to finally realizing I believe in something similar to Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita concept from Hinduism as I got to a point where I believe in an afterlife, soul, and even a god like figure as described as Vishnu/Shiva/Brahman. I decided I wanted to casually learn more about Buddhism as I liked many of the folklore and stories that came from several traditions of Buddhism, particularly stories from Japan and The Journey to the West, and thought they were similar enough to be able to understand things. Now I don't know. Learning more makes me doubt myself and makes me sad that there's nothing to look forward in the next life after obtaining 'liberation' as according to Buddhism there seems to be no real continuation of any self as I think of it and no chance of obtaining something akin to Vaikuntha/celestial realm where you can experience peace, bliss, consciousness. I always pictured it as your "True Self" having access to all the memoires and experiences from all the past lives and continuing to learn and grow even after obtaining liberation, not something static and unchanging or inert. I'll continue to try and learn more from your videos but I honestly don't know if I can reconcile things. Thank you for all your helpful information though as I think these issues are worth contemplating.
Sure, no worries ghaleon7! The one thing I'd say is that in traditional, early Buddhist belief, if you still cling to existence you won't become enlightened anyway, so you will continue to be reborn. However in some later Buddhist beliefs there is an idea that an enlightened being can persist forever, engaging with the world.
Thanks, the only channel teaching about the buddha's lessons.
My pleasure!
Concepts of identity arise from proliferation around Perceptions- what do you think about this dear Doug?
(i am talking in reference to Middle Discourses- Chapter 22)
Very important point to realize!
Another great video. Lots of merit. 🌼🌼🌼
Thanks again!
Have you ever thought of doing a video comparing Buddhist thought to Daoist thought? They seem similar in a few ways but I'd be interested in knowing how they differ more exactly.
Yes, it's something I've been meaning to research. My knowledge of Daoism isn't very deep so I'd need to do more research. But my basic understanding is that Daoism is very much against such things as "training", especially training that is conceptual in character. Yet such conceptually organized training was the heart of early Buddhist practice.
I think that Buddha has a Daoist influence. The three poisons of Desire, hatred and ignorance are the worms of the three dantiens (pride being a form of ignorance).
Desire is the worm of the first dantien, hatred of the second dantien and pride of the third dantien.
People may wonder how wonderfully those teachings still can relate to the humens in this era. But that is the wonder of Dharma(dhamma). Thats why buddha said one uniqueness of dhamma is "akalika"( timeless- similar to a somthing that can use for at any time of humen nature ) because those teachings worked for people who lived 2500 years before and still working and willbe work for people who live in 5000 years after also.
Yes, they are universal truths.
I checked online, there is tutorial of how to make butter from Curd 😁 thanks for the video 🙏
Interesting, I had no clue! 😄
very informative....thnk u sir
My pleasure, Nik!
I think it might make more sense if one start with a definition of a "Self" before we discuss its existence, after all, how can we say something exists or not, if we haven't said what it is. Your definition based on the examples that you referred to, is just a sense of identity based on age/occupation. However, in a spiritual context that is not the usual reference to a self. In vedic literature for example, which predates Shakya Muni, The self or Atma, is beyond the most subtle aspect of existence. A permanent layer. It is the witness er side of us if we were to look for it, and maybe in your context is that which acquires identities. The REAL SELF. In deep meditation it is that which is experienced beyond the "I". I think the Buddha is discussing the "little self" or our sense of identity. Not the spiritual SELF.
Really enjoy your videos. Thanks
Thanks Babek! Yes, in many suttas the Buddha is discussing the smaller self, though in others he is discussing any and all concepts of a self we might have, for example those gained from experiences in deep meditation. So it depends on the context.
@@DougsDharma Thanks for your feedback. Cheers
Thanks for an amazing video yet again!
Question, can the Pali canon be found on the internet for free in English? I can't find it anywhere
Yes, there are a couple of versions. I list them in the info box in my video on the Pāli Canon: th-cam.com/video/YIcnCqOALPs/w-d-xo.html
@@DougsDharma Thank you, saved me a lot of time!
Thank you so much as always for your video sir I learn an immense amount from all of them. If I might request when you have time and if it interests you a video topic one that I have not found a very good answer to and I am curious about the early Buddhist viewpoint on. It is the topic of vegetarianism in early Buddhism and the concept of non-harm as a pertains to the suttas. I would very much appreciate Your perspective on the topic. Thank you as always and keep up the amazing work.
Yes thank you Zak. I did a video touching on that subject awhile back: th-cam.com/video/r5oncPD7jKo/w-d-xo.html
@@DougsDharma Thank you so much that video was extremely insightful and has helped me with a question that has often plagued my mind you have helped to bring some peace to my mind thank you again
My understanding(after reading various Buddhist teachings)that no-self is non-dualism, no soul, no separate entity beyond our physical existence.
Well that is one interpretation of non-self, though it's not quite what the Buddha says in the early teachings.
Great video.
Would it be more accurate to say that buddha said it feels like the acquired self is real in the moment not necessarily that it is ? (Is it still just experiential and it’s existence is ambiguous even in the moment?)
Actually I think your last part sort of answers the question in that self is described as a tool
Yes it can be a tool or useful way to frame practice, for example, as directed around a changeable self.
Perhaps I like the "Empty of other" idea where there neither is or is not a self, - a good sincere way of not being in the simple logic narrativ of either-or. It's very simple and effective to use when you meditate also which is of a greater value then talking Buddhanature dead
Well yes, sometimes the idea of Buddha nature can be confusing.
can you please tell us that in which sutta there is mention of bodhi tree and its name?
I believe the bodhi tree is only mentioned in a sutta or two in the Udāna, but I'm not entirely sure.
There is a self but it is pure subject.....Non Dual....Buddhism shares many teachings from the first two upanishads.
Indeed that is true of some interpretations of later schools of Buddhism, but the early teachings were explicitly in opposition to such Upaniṣadic views.
🙏
🙏😊
Well I'm going to say it ... "I can't believe it's not Buddha" 🙂 *badum tssss
Interesting as usual Doug! I always look forward to every episode!
"Actually that brings up a pretty interesting point! I always hear about the Buddha being stern. But did the Buddha have a sense of humor or was that not appropriate because of his position?
Well yes, the Buddha does seem to have had a sense of humor, at least sometimes it seems as though he was satirizing other philosophies of his day, and the idea that the gods were all-knowing.
Attapatilãbha anatta = the ego is not the Self
Thanks for the video, Doug, as interesting as always. I wanted to ask a question, though.
I understand that at any moment in time, e.g. past, present and future, any identification of self is flawed. The self cannot be wholly present.
However, could we identify with a more "holistic" sort of self, in which we possess some temporal properties? In second grade, we (the holistic self) may possess the property of being youthful but as a parent, we (the same holistic self) are older and have grey hair. Cannot these be the same "self"?
There are many ways we can construct a concept of self, and the way you suggest is one such way: that the "self" is a kind of four-dimensional object with temporal parts. But it doesn't really correspond to our ordinary notion of self that is wholly present and known to us at each moment. It's another kind of concept.
Aniccha..
Yes ...!
The Apostle Paul deals with the resurrection body issue. He says that in the resurrection, the body will be none of the bodies a person has had during their life, but a "spiritual body" that differs from our present body like a plant differs from the seed it once was. (1 Corinthians 15:35-44)
Yes, it's an interesting thought, thanks Eric, but it still leaves the question unanswered as to what the spiritual body will be like if it is literally reborn in the flesh.
The ads in the middle of videos are really making for a bad TH-cam experience.
This question of the continuity of self can become quite vivid in some meditative states. If there is a non-attached 'observing self', which can watch the momentary physical and mental states come and go - this must be permanent, right? It's a soul, or an atman, or whatever - something which stays put while everything else is as fleeting as snow on water. But perhaps that is only a construction of our everyday mind, once ordinary consciousness is back in the driving seat. It needs to make sense of its recent experience in the context of time - and time is indisputably real, right? I suspect that when the 'observing self' was fully engaged, it wasn't permanent or eternal - it was outside time itself. And from that perspective, all our talk of 'before' and 'after' - even 'after death' - is only a way of coping with a local problem - time itself. Dare I say, living in a time-bound world is like living in a bad neighbourhood - there's always something to worry about, until you get to move out. Forgive my rambling...
Well yes, thanks Jack. From the perspective of the early texts, there is no permanent "observing self", only a passing series of observations, and this is something that can be perceived as one goes into and out of various states of mind, both in and out of meditation.
'By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "non-existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one.
{With craving and clinging as condition, existence comes into being.}
But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on "my self." He has no uncertainty or doubt that, when there is arising, only stress is arising; and that when there is passing away, stress is passing away.
{rightly viewed as a conditional phenomenon that started from contact, one see that there is suffering but not a sufferer.}
Yes, exactly so.
This was very good! I find more questions than answers though, for example, if the 'self' is impermanent and not really a real thing, how can there be RE birth?
Well as a secular practitioner I leave questions about rebirth to one side. That said, in a traditional understanding rebirth between lifetimes is understood as essentially the same process as "rebirth" between moments within a lifetime: it's the same causal stream of mental and physical events. It may change moment to moment but the casual links are what bring us to identify it as the same person.
@@DougsDharma oh that makes absolutely perfect sense! THANK YOU! i have struggled with self /non self etc for years and you just resolved it in one sentence. I finally feel like its now possible to move forward in practise. Wow
I get the impression that the Buddha is trying to explain that the self that is continuously experiencing events and the effects of karma is a “verb”, akin to an action being made, as opposed to a substantive, something more “fixed and permanent” in it’s own right and that supposedly takes actions. We ARE actions, transient, and so nothing about us is in itself producing anything in the world as if independent. Everything changes, our aggregates change and so we are never anything fixed, we just appear to be so, however, that is different from nihilism because we ARE something, just the nature of this thing is inseparable from it’s continuously changing causes and conditions and it’s actually unwise to imagine it as such. It’s a not very easy thing to grasp cognitively though… it’s something that has nothing of eternal in it but at the same time continues existing because the craving and ignorance keep the action going on trough many changes, and to stop the action is to be enlightened… maybe? I wouldn’t know, I’m not enlightened 😂
Well sort of, José, but the Buddha is trying to lead us away from our normal tendency to think "we ARE" this or that. As you note, as soon as we think, "I AM this," things change. So whatever we think we "ARE", only persists for a moment and then disappears. So ... we have a kind of self, but it's an ongoing mental construction. 🙂
Now it like you are on your way to understand An-Atman. So, this is partially why i say you "can't" say there is no self
Yes, the material in this video is nothing new, it follows the same line of thought as I've been describing of the Buddha on non-self all along.
🙏🙏🙏😍
🙏😊
I'm half way through and struggling with this because I cannot comprehend the idea of associating self with acquired knowledge or common activities...
Well check out this other video of mine on five ways we construct ourselves, it might help: th-cam.com/video/taz55McTJ8E/w-d-xo.html
In my understanding of Buddhism, like everything else, "self" is neither real nor unreal. It's our usual perception and conceptualization of "self" that is unreal. It is true that every thing is constantly changing and thus "self" is ever changing. In such sense, our usual concept of "self" does not exist. However, in order for something to change, that something must exist to begin with. how can there be changes if there is nothing? In such sense, I think "self" does exists. Such "self" may simply be an "individual" among a universe of interconnected existence.
It's our own habit of attachment to the image of "self" that keeps us trapped inside the world of disillusion. To see our real "being" is to abandon such attachment, in fact, all attachments.
Yes well I've done a number of videos on this topic, if you're interested in more check out my playlist on self and not-self.
@@DougsDharma Sure will. Thanks Doug!
That we are is certain. What we are, not so much.
Well yes, I guess that's one way to look at it!
From 🇱🇰. 🙏
🙏😊
@@DougsDharma I realy appreciate this work. 🙏
👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌
🙏🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹
🙏😊
How larva change(transform) into beautiful butterfly 🦋.
How milk transform into ghee.
Larva continuously uncover the leyers of there body and finally discover the most beautiful butterfly in it self.
Our real self is olso cover with many layers of ego.
When we uncover this layers of ego then finally our true nature is appear.
Is monastic a monk?
Well it's either a monk or a nun.
I think it can be stated that we are milk i. The sense that we are the same source as the cheese the gee the butter and the curds. All life has the same source and this one we call animal this one human this one water this one fire so in that sense there is no self.
Personae
A vedantin may say the milk in this example is the ground for existence. The Unchanging Brahman. And whether its curd or whey or ghee it is still grounded in milk. The transformation of milk into curd, ghee etc are a result of avidya or maya or ignorance. Our discriminating self is deluded. And a Advaita dhyana practice helps us to dispel maya and realize our true nature, which is the milk, the eternal, unchanging Brahman :)
Interesting, I wonder if the simile came from Upaniṣadic teachers and was repurposed by the Buddha. He did that often with Brahminic notions of his day.
@@DougsDharma Yes Madhavacharya, founder of Vishisthadvaita gave the milk example. "1. Butter in Milk
Butter or ghee exists in milk. But where is it? It cannot be perceived. But it is present everywhere in milk, in each and every drop of milk. There is no particle of milk where butter or ghee is not present. In the same manner Brahman is present everywhere; and there is no speck of space where Brahman is not. But Brahman cannot be perceived and It seems to be nowhere. It is the very essence of cream of existence, but It is nowhere to the eyes of a worldly-minded man. This illustrates the omnipresence of Brahman."