For some reason, when I read the comments, I'm in hell, hence, I'll just appreciate what is given, grasp it, acknowledge it, know it, and let it go (like our breathing). Saddhu, Saddhu, Saadddhhuuu, p.s.: another cool dude that likes to mix Buddhism and science is Ajahn Brahm! Who's with me?
Very well explained the intricate Buddhist understanding on anatta, how Lord Buddha had discovered 2500 years ago which science is slowly unfolding.....
Thanks Billy for your very articulate presentation. By making reference to neuroscience findings it has clarified and reinforced an understanding of Ven Punnaji's interpretation of Pali Canon. To the extent that Buddhism is an experiential mind science your lucid explanation is most invaluable. Pay no attention to the dissenting background noises - as everyone is entitled to their own views ------as TRUTH has no duality.Sadhu, Sadhu, Sadhu
great stuff both on the idea/construction of the self and on understanding better the key principle of Dependent Origination (which is not specifically mentioned in this talk.. but is really well exposed by it) .
Specifically in sutra, anatta is used to describe the temporal and unreal (metaphysically so) nature of any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal, and temporal things, from macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter as pertains the physical body, the cosmos at large, including any and all mental machinations which are of the nature of arising and passing. Anatta in sutra is synonymous and interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanent); all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. Such as: “All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta.” It should be further noted that, in doctrine, that the only noun which is branded permanent (nicca), is obviously and logically so, the noun attan [Skt. Atman], such as passage (SN 1.169). Anatta refers specifically and only to the absence of the permanent soul as pertains any or all of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) attributes, or khandhas (skandhas, aggregates). Anatta/Anatman in the earliest existing Buddhist texts, the Nikayas, is an adjective, (A is anatta, B is anatta, C is anatta). The commonly (=profane, consensus, herd-views) held belief to wit that: “Anatta means no-soul, therefore Buddhism taught that there was no soul” is an irrational absurdity which cannot be found or doctrinally substantiated by means of the Nikayas, the suttas (Skt. Sutras), of Buddhism. The Pali compound term and noun for “no soul” is natthatta (literally “there is not/no[nattha]+atta’[Soul]), not the term anatta, and is mentioned at Samyutta Nikaya 4.400, where Gotama was asked if there “was no- soul (natthatta)”, to which Gotama equated this position to be a Nihilistic heresy (ucchedavada). Common throughout Buddhist sutra (and Vedanta as well) is the denial of psycho-physical attributes of the mere empirical self to be the Soul, or confused with same. The Buddhist paradigm (and the most common repeating passage in sutta) as regards phenomena is “Na me so atta” (this/these are not my soul), this most common utterance of Gotama the Buddha in the Nikayas, where “na me so atta” = Anatta/Anatman. In sutta, to hold the view that there was “no-Soul” (natthatta) is = natthika (nihilist). Buddhism differs from the “nothing-morist” (Skt. Nastika, Pali natthika) in affirming a spiritual nature that is not in any wise, but immeasurable, inconnumerable, infinite, and inaccessible to observation; and of which, therefore, empirical science can neither affirm nor deny the reality thereof of him who has ‘Gone to That[Brahman]” (tathatta). It is to the Spirit (Skt. Atman, Pali attan) as distinguished from oneself (namo-rupa/ or khandhas, mere self as = anatta) i.e., whatever is phenomenal and formal (Skt. and Pali nama-rupa, and savinnana-kaya) “name and appearance”, and the “body with its consciousness”. [SN 2.17] ‘Nonbeing (asat, natthiti [views of either sabbamnatthi ‘the all is ultimately not’ (atomism), and sabbam puthuttan ‘the all is merely composite’ [SN 2.77] both of this positions are existential antinomies, and heresies of annihilationism])’”. In contrast it has been incorrectly asserted that affirmation of the atman is = sassatavada (conventionally deemed ‘eternalism’). However the Pali term sasastavada is never associated with the atman, but that the atman was an agent (karmin) in and of samsara which is subject to the whims of becoming (bhava), or which is meant kammavada (karma-ism, or merit agencyship); such as sassatavada in sutta = “atta ca so loka ca” (the atman and the world [are one]), or: ‘Being (sat, atthiti [views of either sabbamatthi ‘the all is entirety’, and sabbamekattan ‘the all is one’s Soul’ [SN 2.77] both are heresies of perpetualism]). Sasastavada is the wrong conception that one is perpetually (sassata) bound within samsara and that merit is the highest attainment for either this life or for the next. The heretical antinomy to nihilism (vibhava, or = ucchedavada) is not, nor in sutta, the atman, but bhava (becoming, agencyship). Forever, or eternal becoming is nowhere in sutta identified with the atman, which is “never an agent (karmin)”, and “has never become anything” (=bhava). These antinomies of bhava (sassatavada) and vibhava (ucchedavada) both entail illogical positions untenable to the Vedantic or Buddhist atman; however the concept of “eternalism” as = atman has been the fallacious secondary crutch for supporting the no-atman commentarialists position on anatta implying = there is no atman.
as long as their is identification, there is suffering. Your brain is small on the subject, obviously. Atta hi paramo piya "Atman is the dearest beloved" Go spend 20 years learning Pali, I dont give a shit about your worthless opinions, only doctrine.
F.I.S.H Paragraph 3. The body of every human being is composed of eight material elements: The five gross material elements - solids, liquids, gases, fire/heat and ether/space and the three subtle material elements - the mind, the intellect and the ego. Each of the five gross material elements corresponds to one of the senses of the body. E.g. in outer space where there is a vacuum (ether), one can detect sounds via the ear, whereas solid matter can be seen with the eyes, felt with the sense of touch, tasted with the tongue, smelt with the nose and heard with the ear. Beyond these eight material elements is the true self - the eternal soul, which pervades the entire body. That explains why we say "This is my hand" "This is my mind". Who is the owner of the body? It is us, the anti-matter, the inextinguishable spiritual spark, the soul ! We, the soul, are eternally immutable and are by nature situated in unadulterated bliss and in perfect knowledge of the absolute truth. This purity has been “covered” and corrupted by sin (or selfishness). The body is merely a temporary vehicle for this ever-existing spiritual entity, for as Lord Jesus Christ said "The body counts for nothing - it is the spirit which gives life". One who considers himself to be nothing more than a physical (and mental/intellectual) body is no more intelligent than an ignorant ass or cow. To read the remaining thirty-nine paragraphs of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, which the God of all gods has graciously given to His Prophet on Earth, email: the1965@hotmail.com with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field.
Theoria Apophasis What ever teaching you are following is obviously not removing any greed or hatred in your life. Read your replies, I am shocked you could say to understand the true teachings of the Buddha and then look down on others with words like 'son' and 'boy'. Perhaps less study and more practice would do you good.
The best way to promote Buddhism is to make it easy to understand by lay people. This lecture is interesting and comprehensive but too academic and make it even more complex IMO. Self is difficult to describe so make it easy.
Besides this, seeing things in particular is a great way to clarify logical subset confusions. Creating logical sets though is quite useful for statistical analysis, as long as all factors are considered. It saves time and energy to use containers for groups of things in many endeavors. Makes one wonder to what particular depth Buddhists can achieve on the scale from energy string, quark,atom,molecule,aggregate and so on.
Quantum physics are normal in Buddha's time. What we call 'super-natural' is not useful to get rid of real sufferings. Buddha talked about relative and ultimate truth. We can choose to evolve whatever way. No one can obstruct your freedom.
Nice, but I think Douglas Hofstadter pinned it down more precisely in his strange book "I Am A Strange Loop": the illusion of self arises fundamentally as a result, not of emotion, but of representarion. The sense of a self is a type of level-crossing feedback loop (a strange loop) which occurs when the apparati of representation end up forming a representation of those very apparati of representation.
Tat Tvam Asi, "Thou art That" is one of the mahavakyas in Vedantic Santana Dharma. Universal energy never rose and will never cease. Universal energy causes the rise and fall of the galaxies, milky way and the solar system within it self. Human beings like all other organism within this universal energy rise and fall.It is a perpetual vibrant cosmic dance of energy being transferred to matter and matter to energy.But as an entity the universal energy has no birth or death. " Poornamada ....."
This is a Buddhist pov not Vedanta/ Brahmanic. Differences in opinion do exist even amongst mystics. It may be convenient to blur them all together but they are distinct but inter related pov
In many talks by Bhante Punnaji/Billy Tan we are told specifically that "there are no objects in the world", that everything is a mental construct and all we see is light. In this talk reference the dog, but in all cases, we are also told that we see light that has been reflected from the dog or whatever it is. This means that there actually IS a dog "out there" doesn't it?? Even if we have only seen the lightwaves reflected from it and constructed the image in our heads. The light is reflected from an object, so how can they say there are no objects in the world? I wish I could understand this point. I also wonder, if all we see is light and the images are constructed inside our brains, why we need glasses?
Oriana Have you ever had a hallucination? I had a visual hypnogogic hallucination once; I woke up in the morning and I saw a dress on a hanger hung over the top of my closet door. The thing was, I knew I had no such dress (it was a white shift dress with some sort of calligraphy on it) and yet it appeared to be there as clear as anything that "actually existed". Obviously it wasn't as simple as light waves hitting my eyes, sending signals to my brain, and manifesting as the perception of a dress. It's just that my sleep brainwaves were persisting and my brain interpreted those as the existence of lightwaves indicating the existence of a dress. Likewise, have you seen some of these trippy videos created by the Google DeepMind AI? It "sees" faces-animals, humans, etc-where there are none because its capacity to make connections between photos it has processed and the photo it is currently looking at is set to a higher sensitivity than we are used to. It's like when people see Jesus' face in burnt toast: it's not really there; it's there because we saw it before and want to see it again. It's all a terrible mess!
Could it be that Buddha ( historical) saw the 'self/Self' as a hindrance to the beginner/ novice mind so taught against its existence as his chief aim was to alleviate suffering and confusion but on an advanced esoteric level could there be some mystical 'thing' that is there?
1. He has chosen just a few 'scientists' to quote from when trying to reinforce his ideas. In reality often there are always differing often very opposing theories from the scientic world. 2. The 'brain' is a relatively new emerging area yet to be fully and exactly understood. The above meaning that almost anyone capable of speaking eloquently and seemingly 'in the know' and armed with a well put together (and convincing) presentation can appear as though their conclusions are accurate and definitive. Q. Who or what is it that determines/decides upon the extent of 'karma' and more importantly who or what is it attributable to if there's nothing (no self) to attribute it to? Q. If a new born baby (without having any experiences, memories, perceptions etc etc) is pricked with a needle would he/she find it cry out, be indifferent, laugh? ..how did this response come about in a 1 day old human being? In reality, there are many different schools of thought, no one truly has the answers to the greatest mysteries of life! My final though is this ..how does it help mankind for us to believe there is no-self, nothing is real (not even a dog)? ....surely compassion, love, morality, caring, happiness etc etc are nurtured and in existence through the belief there is a 'me and that me is part of a 'we' ...and all are here for a reason ...and that reason suggests a creator of somekind. And IF ..just IF we are ALL part of some grand design by some Creator, might there be many things that we dont know and may never have the understanding to know! Peace
+Karl BHX Hi Karl, somehow your other post got deleted or something. Or I can't find it. But your questions do have answers, so I feel I should at least attempt a response even if it is 8 months later. ". Who or what is it that determines/decides upon the extent of 'karma' and more importantly who or what is it attributable to if there's nothing (no self) to attribute it to?" There is no "who"--that is the first problem. Nor really a what. Because reality is one automatic, infinitely interdependent process, there is no need for a grand King to decide things like this. It is just a huge massive web of factors at play since the big bang (and before in previous universes if you buy that cyclic universe theory which Buddha asserted). "Q. If a new born baby (without having any experiences, memories, perceptions etc etc) is pricked with a needle would he/she find it cry out, be indifferent, laugh? ..how did this response come about in a 1 day old human being?" The baby is born with the instinct to perceive pain. This is due to the DNA which controls the central nervous system's development. I'm not sure what this has to do with Buddha's message; can you elaborate? "In reality, there are many different schools of thought, no one truly has the answers to the greatest mysteries of life! " That is your belief. You can choose to keep that belief or do some investigation into some very basic questions, such as what is free will, for example. Or, in direct experience, is there a witness to experience, or just the experience? In seeing, is there only the seen, or is there actually a seer seeing things as it sort of seems? Notice how the brain works. Notice how thoughts come in to interpret experience and make it less direct. Notice how various sense streams are woven together to produce one apparently coherent experience with an apparent experiencer at the center. "My final though is this ..how does it help mankind for us to believe there is no-self, nothing is real (not even a dog)? ....surely compassion, love, morality, caring, happiness etc etc are nurtured and in existence through the belief there is a 'me and that me is part of a 'we' ...and all are here for a reason ...and that reason suggests a creator of somekind. " In fact it is just the opposite. Compassion is to help folks become free of suffering. That can't happen unless one has insight into the cause of suffering. One cannot substitute wisdom for beliefs. I can tell you that there is a creator God, but that is logically impossible, since the creator God would have had to come from somewhere, and even if the creator God came from nowhere, the creator God's decisions would be determined by conditions, just like everything else, and hence it would not actually be a God but rather a force. As long as one is dreaming that there is a self, then one will likely also dream there is a creator God. Because that is all part of the same faulty logic of a witness that is outside of reality and able to modify reality "at will" without anything determining its will. It is only when one understands that everything one does creates conditions for future happenings (and is a result of previous conditions), that one realizes the importance of correct view and activity. "And IF ..just IF we are ALL part of some grand design by some Creator, might there be many things that we dont know and may never have the understanding to know! " If we want to argue that we are too lowly/limited to ever know the truth, that's a really good way to never know the truth. The only way to know if we can figure it out is to look and see. Do things happen due to conditions? Look and see. What does free will actually mean in reality? Is there actually an observer or is it just a sense of an observer which distorts experience and makes it less direct? Check out LiberationUnleashed.com for some guidance in this process. And sorry if I've said anything offensive. That was surely not my aim.
Joel R - Forgive me, I am pretty busy right now, but can I ask a very sincere and what I feel (perceive) to be a reasonable question - why are you 'challenging' my and so many other people's comments, thoughts etc; particularly as it's been say 8months ago (longer or less in some cases). Now I may have coined the wrong words in how I've phrased the question but I think you get my drift. I genuinely would like to know what your person motivation is. Thanks p.s. I will endeavour asap to set aside some time to read your comments and refresh my memory re. my historical comments and those made by other contributors. Metta to all!
Hi Karl, I actually got a notification that someone responded to my comment (not sure if this was accurate or if it was a reply to someone's reply to my comment). So I started replying to comments that seemed like they were asking for a reply, such as yours. If you don't want people to answer your questions, why not delete the questions? My personal motiviation is to clarify some things that a) people are asking for clarification on, and b) that have dogged me most of my life and caused me immense suffering. In other words, I am motivated by compassion, the desire to help. Are there other motivations at work perhaps? Yeah, probably a whole ton of them. Never said I was perfect, and I don't even know what a perfect responder would sound like. I do find that it can be somewhat pointless sometimes to help people gain clarity--some people actually don't want clarity (or aren't yet ready for it). But on the other hand there have been some people that have thanked me immensely for what I've shown them (rather, what they've realized for themselves with a little clarification from me, which in turn came from someone else giving me clarification, and so on ad infinitum). Buddha said that the greatest gift you can give is the gift of the dhamma (or at least that is what I remember from my readings). Obviously I don't have the level of wisdom that Buddha had, but even he met with quite a number of people who had no idea what he was talking about & even got angry that he claimed to have some answers. Still, I'm very glad he went on spreading the wisdom that he had the good fortune to obtain.
+Joel R - +Joel R - I began to read you reply to my polite question but was surprised to see... "If you don't want someone to answer your question why don't you delete it?“... That's somewhat superfluous (and dare I say it suggests an emotional undertone). As I said my question was sincere; as such we not veiled in anyway. My motivation was simply because you strike me as someone who is searching for (or needing) something far beyond the answering or 'clarification' of questions (historical in my and some other people's case). Your response to my question reinforces that right or wrong perception/idea in my mind. With respect, the me, myself, I seems very very prominent in you, and you evidently are making assumptions about those you engage... This contributes heavily to a condescending overtone in you comments (my opinion only). Humbly, may I suggest some food for reflection: - Is it possible that you've given, or rather sent a too long and complicated a OTT message to say a young person or someone for who English needs to be communicated at a basic level? - Kālāma Sutta (The Kālāma Sutta is also used for advocating prudence by the use of sound logical reasoning arguments and the dialectic principles for inquiries in the practice that relates to the discipline of seeking truth, wisdom and knowledge whether it is religious or not. In short, the Kālāma Sutta is opposed to blind faith, dogmatism and belief spawned from specious reasoning. [not my quote]. - Did the Buddha categorically rebut the possibility of what is colloquially referred to as a soul, spirit or real self (the latter 'real self' I believe often referred to by the like of Mooji - I'm sure you may have heard of him). Anyway, just a few things I hope you will reflect upon and that I humbly hope will be of some small benefit at least. Final thought, or rather admission - you know, for over a year I have attended a Vihara, been in close contact with several elderly venerable bhantes, and never once have any of them been so deep or absolute as you have been. Actually, it took weeks of me doing chores and meditating and a long 10day retreat before they even answered my simplest of questions. True story. Peace
All ready off we go about ,new age , maybe the ,lith/ and others parts of the gut ,are full of the rubbish that is given us our moods , if we are coming from the flesh and blood pressure, Cut that connection with, one,s hope to get out of here in one Pace, yes and that will be it all , not a thing apart from the flesh and blood , that's gotta be a bit of a great lost !!!!!!!!!
The lecture is coming from the Theravada bias that the Buddha denied the self. He did not. The Buddha only pointed out what was not the self; that we should not identify our self with what is not really our self. For example, the Buddha taught that physical shape (rupa) is not our self or feeling is not our self. It is when we cling to what is not our self does suffering come to be.
The noun ātman is generally translated by the pronoun "self" but that is not the classical definition that the Buddha understood which was established long before the birth of the Buddha. To cut to the chase, ātman means the 'animative principle." We could not move the psycho-physical body without, so to speak, a prime-mover. The ātman also is the Buddha-nature according to the Mahayana-mahaparinirvana Sutra. It is most intrinsic but covered over and hidden by the an-ātman (what is not the ātman which is a configuration of the ātman). Only Buddha's realize that this world is a configuration of the ātman. Non-buddhas only see configurations (i.e., phenomena) not its substance or ātman. Science cannot answer the question, "What is the universe made of?" The Buddha does.
With respect to the Theravada bias, unfortunately Buddha and/or the first Buddhist practitioner's arent here to ask what it was precisely that they believed in regards to anatta. If as you suggest the Buddha believed essentially what the Vedantin's believed why did he then reformulate the already ancient view of reincarnation and deem it 'rebirth' but not re incarnating of some 'soul'?
You are presuming there is a self outside of what the Buddha taught is not self (the five aggregates). But in no where did the Buddha ever say there is a self! Sabbe Dhamma Anatta - all phenomenon are not self! Another vain attempt to smuggle the idea of self into Buddhism
perception exists without a body although one might not call it exactly perception... in fact the body is merely an illusion necessary for identification
+umut barat We are body-mind entities, the feeling of being a self is a subjective one based on memories (personal and collective). What we think and feel as a self is a mere mental construct, a concept that has no bearing in reality. And it stops to exist when you stop thinking about it.
Thanks for sharing but it doesn't solve my confusion. You're simply stating that self is just a mental construct to create subjective experience. We all can assume anything so to support a hypothesis, isn't it so?
Buddha denies 3 things about the self: (1) that the body or anything arising from the body, the aggregates, or conditioned phenomenom, are the self. (2) that there is literally no self. (3) the Hindu/Brahmin doctrine that Brahma is the self, the one and only self in the universe and everyone shares that one soul. / Buddha actually DID NOT deny the Western conception of the self, i.e. that we each have our own immaterial soul. See Samyutta Nikaya 44.10, where all 3 points are actually found.
"he does negate the eternal, individual soul." No, what he denies is a doctrine the translations call "eternalism" which holds to an eternal CORPORATE soul, i.e. that you don't really exist as an individual but that your soul is merely a part/piece of a larger whole, namely Brahma/God. What Buddha clearly affirms is the eternal individual soul. Otherwise, there could neither be reincarnation NOR the deathless perfect supreme security of Nibbana. Try explaining how Buddha went to Nibbana if he has no eternal individual soul. What went there? Memories of what his aggregates used to be? Give me a break. This is what's wrong with modern Buddhism. People don't think it through. They just hate Christianity and so they reject the concept of a soul, and make Buddhism their tank for bulldosing Christianity, although Buddhism is not an anti-metaphyisical system like they like to pretend. Its a more sophisticated metaphysical system. If you really want to bulldose Christianity, why not do it with more sophisticated metaphysics rather than with atheist anti-metaphysics?
David Brainerd There is no concept of reincarnation in buddhism, its called rebirth. If you want to check out for yourself, look for the 72 wrong views discourse of the Pali Canon. Can you please point out where did you read that Buddha talked about an eternal individual soul? And Anatta is not a "modern buddhist" invention, in fact is the oldest and most distinctive stance of buddhist as a system of thought. Read Nagarjuna and Boddhidharma for example. If you want even more proof of this, check out Shankaras criticism of buddhism as contemporary brahmanical and jain criticism of buddhist doctrine that focus exactly on your pont, how buddha denied any substancial self and essence of our existences, the atman or eternal soul. Last and most important, maybe the problem lies in that you cant reconcile your christian background with Buddhism and this is confusing you. Also, the metaphysical inclinations of Buddhism were developed after hundred of years of evolution and contact with other systems. In fact, the pali canon demonstrates that early Buddhism was clearly against all sort of metaphysical speculation, focusing only on practical means to attain nibbana.
"There is no concept of reincarnation in buddhism, its called rebirth." Dummies say that all the time, but in reality it doesn't fix anything for the soul-deniers. Both require a soul. Mere memories don't get reborn, and if they did, who would care enough to get them enlightened so they could go to Nirvana?
David Brainerd You dont go to Nirvana, Nirvana is not a metaphysical place. Go to the Sutras and try to read them without the interference of christian doctrine, even if you dont support buddhism.
If Buddhism claims there is MIND and MATTER: they say they are both beginingless. Am I right? Ok, than how do they claim they are also endless? With the death of sun, it can end both of them forever.
Buddhism is not an ontological belief system. If you want to learn about matter, study physics. If you want to learn to be happy, PRACTICE Buddhas teachings.
+umut barat The death of the sun does not mean the death of matter, since physics shows us that matter is only ever changed (into energy or other matter), never created or destroyed. In any case mind vs matter is a dualistic mode of perception.
perhaps, depends whether you subscribe to the cyclical universe expansion/contraction theory (which Buddha did btw), but anyway i'm not sure it matters either way...
Joel R after the death of sun, the human species will be gone forever. this is a scientific fact. there wont be humany anymore. so nihilism and science mostly agree at this point.
Anatta but rebirth. Re means to “do again” so why is there a RE birth if there is No Self??? Then it should not be called rebirth this is just Nihilism.
If there is no self then what ha the Buddha gone unto what does Tathagata mean? What is the “that” in the phrase “that thou art” it is something. It may not be an objective self but it is something. Emptiness does not exist.
This person is mixing up ‘conventional reality’ and ‘ultimate reality.’ Science operates in the ‘CONVENTIONAL world.’ Buddhism (and all of spirituality) is about understanding ULTIMATE REALITIES. Ultimate realities are about the flow of our experience. The following can be said about this flow of experience: (i) In everyone of us (including scientists), within all our experiences, there is nothing outside of the five aggregates that are continuously arising and ceasing. If we look at our moment-to-moment experience, each moment arises and ceases (i.e., each moment is impermanent). (ii) Whether we analyze the outside world (analyze trees, the sky, talk about evolution) or the inside world (circulatory system, or the brain and the nervous system) all this happens within a mind stream that is continuously arising and ceasing. (iii) The concept of a self also happens within this mind stream as an arising and ceasing (impermanent) thought moment. This can happen in 20 ways (would take too long to explain). Also, I did not hear the word “impermanence” mentioned even once during this talk.
+Diane Actually, science is incredibly useful for understanding the ultimate reality. Logic alone suffices to get a head start, but there does come a point at which you realize that your mode of perception is not reality itself, and is nothing more than an obfuscation of reality. That's when meditation starts in ernest and if you are very ardent and sincere about liberation you are likely to penetrate the veil of self--Buddha said one could do this in only a few weeks if they have right view etc, and it seemed to happen that way for me. That doesn't mean I'm fully enlightened, far from it, but I've seen (at various times) what reality actually is minus the illusion of a center of reference, or a background witness, & hence subject/object duality, all of which is fairly unscientific as Bro. Tan and Sam Harris and many others explain. It is perfect flow, disjoint yet infinitely interpentrating, with everything self-known. Outside world and inside world and mind vs matter (or awareness vs awared) is ultimately just the habitual mode of viewing reality.
JOEL R, MAN, YOU ARE JUST A THEORIST, PRACTICE IT, THAT'S WHAT DHAMMA IS. BUDDHA TAUGHT HIS DHAMMA FOR YOU TO PRACTICE, TEACHINGS GIVEN IS THE PATH TO PRACTICE, THESE TYPE OF GUYS AS HE SAYS ' STREETWISDOM' HIS NAME, HE CAN NOT UNDERSTAND EVEN THE BASICS OF DHAMMA LET ALONG TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO THE WORLD ANATTA HIS WAY, WHAT A LOOSER, YOU CAN'T RE WRITE DHAMMA, BUDDHAS'S METHODOLOGY IS VERY CLEAR AND PRECISE WHAT WAS ALREADY MENTIONED IN PALI CANNON, UNFORTUNATELY THE NON PALI READERS HAVE TO DEPEND ON TRANSLATION BUT THAT IS NOT SO EASY WITH SOME OF THE PALI WORDS. SCIENCE IS INCREDIBLE ONLY IF YOU ARE A PERSON WHO IS INTERESTED IN LIVING IN THE MATERIAL WORLD AND LOOK FOR APPROVALS (DOUBTING THOMAS'S ) (THIS IS WHY ANICCHA), MAY I ASK YOU A SIMPLE QUESTION, IF YOU ARE A BUDDHIST WHY DO YOU NEED TO KNOW MODERN SCIENCE? FORTUNATELY BUDDHISM REMAINED IN THE EAST UN SPOILED, THE WEST ALWAYS HAVE A HABIT OF SPOILING EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE, THANK GOD THEY COULD NOT GET TO BUDDHISM TO DO THAT. BY THE WAY DON'T THINK THAT SCIENCE WAS DISCOVERED 500 YEARS AGO, 6000+ YEAR AGO RIG VEDA A SOCIETY IN INDIA, HIGHLY CIVILISED AND ADVANCE IN MANY WAYS ( ONLY RECENTLY FOUND ANCIENT TEXT IN AFGHANISTAN BY CHINESE MINING COMPANY WHICH WAS IN INDIAN VEDIC TEXT THAT WAS GIVEN TO A UNIVERSITY IN INDIA FOR TRANSLATION AND THEY FOUND OUT MATHEMATICAL SPACE PROGRAMS AND ANTI GRAVITATIONAL (IRDI IN SANSKRIT) SPACE CRAFT MANUALS ETC. AND ONE SUCH SPACE CRAFT WAS FOUND IN A CAVE IN AFGHANISTAN RECENTLY BY THE USA SOLDIERS YOU PROBABLY HEARD ABOUT THIS NO DOUBT, SO THIS IS WHAT BUDDHA MENTIONED ANNICHA, PROCESS OF CHANGING (IMPERMANENCE) , DUE TO THAT COMES UNSATISFACTORY CONDITION (DUKKA) THEREFORE, UNDERSTAND WHAT ANNATTA - NON SELF IS IN ORDER TO BE NEUTRAL (TO ATTAIN NIRVANA) THIS (THILAKANA) IS THE MOST IMPORTANT DISCOVERY IN BUDDHISM.
Raj, I am not a theorist. I know nibbana quite well from experience. :) My understanding of the dhamma concords with that which you will find in the Bahiya sutta, as well as the writings at the blog AwakeningToReality (on blogspot), as well as the excellent 33 sermons on nibbana by Venerable Ñanananda, which you can find online for free. You are right that we do not need modern science to understand dependent origination. All we need is basic logic. Buddha's fundamental teaching is that everything appears due to conditions ("this" is dependent on "that", and with the cessation of "this", "that" also ceases; a teaching which roots out dualism without instituting monism). From that, one can easily derive that there is nobody actually here apart from the appearance of individual conditions which are actually part of the infinite web of conditions. Easy to understand intellectually, but hard to "realize." The illusion of self and "free will" is a strong tendency that requires a lot of sustained effort to fully dissolve.
you are full of shit, If you have experienced Nibbhana, you would have been Arahath, Looks to me you have come out from a comic book, you don't have a clue what Dhamma is about, such ego and ignorance, there is no end for your samsara.
Raj - I do not think you should get so angry with Joel. Anger is not conducive for enlightenment. Calm your mind - the Buddha said not to get angry even with people who criticize him. If you truly want to follow the Buddhist path, cultivating anger and shouting at people can be a HUGE hindrance. Also, who knows - Joel might be an enlightened being - perhaps a stream enterer. We do not know, so it is best not to assume. All we can do is to diligently work towards our own enlightenment (instead of criticizing others). I wish you well.
If the mind is caused by the brain then what is entering Samadhi😂😂😂😂😂 My Non-Self??? Foolishness how can people not see this foolishness this man is saying?
the buddha didn't "deny" the soul or atman... he acknowledged that the perception of soul arises... and everything that arises will cease. it is not wise to become attached to atman. That is what anatta is. The non attachment to atman. Putting aside the existential questions of "who am i" in order to focus on truth itself without the dilution of personalization. that is my perception of anatta.
thegodfigure wrong, the false idea of soul arises, does the wifi that's powering your computer have a self, no it's just wifi, when the computer dies it links to a new computer
If there is No Self then there is no Darma Wheel…because there is no Self to be stuck on the wheel in the first place therefore there is no need to follow any 8 fold path cause we will all just die anyway and the self which you say is a construct will just fall away naturally. There is no way the Buddha taught this because this teaching is simply foolishness.
The Pali tradition deals directly with the original suttas while the other traditions add a whole bunch of philosophy and pile on all kind of things that steer far from what the Buddha taught. Buddha Gotama said, Sabbe Dhamma Annata, all realities are not self. He never said there is no self. He never said what is beyond these things we cling to as self. And when he discusses sunnata, emptieness, he describes it as empty of what is not there. The reason for this is that the belief in a self, or Atman, in any form results in clinging at the final stage preventing full liberation, as is apparent in some the angry reactions to this video in this comment thread. Any idea of self results in clinging. When the final liberation occures, there is an experience that cannot be put into words and the Buddha made no attempt at doing so. This idea of self, especially an eternal soul, is the core illusion preventing human beings from living freely and clearly in accord with the Mystery. All things perceivable through the five senses or nameable are purely ideal and clinging to these things creates all our suffering.
+paganpants86 no such passage exists, youre A FOOL Atta’sarana anan’n’asarana.--------"Soul as a refuge with none other as refuge” DN 2.100 “Atta’ ca me so saranam gati ca” ----------“The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto” Jatakapali 1441 Akkhakandam "Soul the refuge (Saran.am.attano)" DN 2.120 Jataka-2 #1341 “tattha atta’ va sarathi” --------“the Soul is Charioteer”
+paganpants86 Oh yeah the Buddha said there is no self (Anatta). The explanation and understanding of it is often not accurate though. You can't intellectualize this thing. You have to experience it to see it.
+Theoria Apophasis When you experience no self, you will understand what Buddha was talking about. It most certainly is NO SELF, with no center of reference. No reference at all. No background, no witness. Compare that with being God, which is another experience/realization also called One Mind. You will see that Buddha had the true liberating insight which is incredibly rare. Even with just logic you can figure out that there is no self, however. Self implies a witness, yet witness implies an entity which exists outside of reality. Unless you have another idea of what self means. Here is some good reading on the topic also: awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self_1.html
so your brain dead???? experience no self? how FING stupid are you boy??? tell me who experienced it??????? IDIOT!!!! let me know when you can quote DOCTRINE, buddhist doctrine trumps your pathetic SPEW
For some reason, when I read the comments, I'm in hell, hence, I'll just appreciate what is given, grasp it, acknowledge it, know it, and let it go (like our breathing). Saddhu, Saddhu, Saadddhhuuu, p.s.: another cool dude that likes to mix Buddhism and science is Ajahn Brahm! Who's with me?
Very well explained the intricate Buddhist understanding on anatta, how Lord Buddha had discovered 2500 years ago which science is slowly unfolding.....
r u STUPID - this guy can not explain how fat he is let along trying to explain anatta
A wonderful exposition, thanks for sharing the infinite and timeless wisdom of the Buddha.
awesome awesome explanation !! deeply grateful to Brother Billy Tan for your kind help and for sharing the Dhamma.
Thanks Billy for your very articulate presentation. By making reference to neuroscience findings it has clarified and reinforced an understanding of Ven Punnaji's interpretation of Pali Canon. To the extent that Buddhism is an experiential mind science your lucid explanation is most invaluable. Pay no attention to the dissenting background noises - as everyone is entitled to their own views ------as TRUTH has no duality.Sadhu, Sadhu, Sadhu
Very good explanation about consciousness and how it appears in the theater of mind.
great stuff both on the idea/construction of the self and on understanding better the key principle of Dependent Origination (which is not specifically mentioned in this talk.. but is really well exposed by it) .
Thank you brother Billy. You are very good
They do not see but just pure awareness and they do not compare, non duality.
Specifically in sutra, anatta is used to describe the temporal and unreal (metaphysically so) nature of any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal, and temporal things, from macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter as pertains the physical body, the cosmos at large, including any and all mental machinations which are of the nature of arising and passing. Anatta in sutra is synonymous and interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanent); all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. Such as: “All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta.” It should be further noted that, in doctrine, that the only noun which is branded permanent (nicca), is obviously and logically so, the noun attan [Skt. Atman], such as passage (SN 1.169).
Anatta refers specifically and only to the absence of the permanent soul as pertains any or all of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) attributes, or khandhas (skandhas, aggregates). Anatta/Anatman in the earliest existing Buddhist texts, the Nikayas, is an adjective, (A is anatta, B is anatta, C is anatta). The commonly (=profane, consensus, herd-views) held belief to wit that: “Anatta means no-soul, therefore Buddhism taught that there was no soul” is an irrational absurdity which cannot be found or doctrinally substantiated by means of the Nikayas, the suttas (Skt. Sutras), of Buddhism.
The Pali compound term and noun for “no soul” is natthatta (literally “there is not/no[nattha]+atta’[Soul]), not the term anatta, and is mentioned at Samyutta Nikaya 4.400, where Gotama was asked if there “was no- soul (natthatta)”, to which Gotama equated this position to be a Nihilistic heresy (ucchedavada). Common throughout Buddhist sutra (and Vedanta as well) is the denial of psycho-physical attributes of the mere empirical self to be the Soul, or confused with same. The Buddhist paradigm (and the most common repeating passage in sutta) as regards phenomena is “Na me so atta” (this/these are not my soul), this most common utterance of Gotama the Buddha in the Nikayas, where “na me so atta” = Anatta/Anatman. In sutta, to hold the view that there was “no-Soul” (natthatta) is = natthika (nihilist). Buddhism differs from the “nothing-morist” (Skt. Nastika, Pali natthika) in affirming a spiritual nature that is not in any wise, but immeasurable, inconnumerable, infinite, and inaccessible to observation; and of which, therefore, empirical science can neither affirm nor deny the reality thereof of him who has ‘Gone to That[Brahman]” (tathatta). It is to the Spirit (Skt. Atman, Pali attan) as distinguished from oneself (namo-rupa/ or khandhas, mere self as = anatta) i.e., whatever is phenomenal and formal (Skt. and Pali nama-rupa, and savinnana-kaya) “name and appearance”, and the “body with its consciousness”. [SN 2.17] ‘Nonbeing (asat, natthiti [views of either sabbamnatthi ‘the all is ultimately not’ (atomism), and sabbam puthuttan ‘the all is merely composite’ [SN 2.77] both of this positions are existential antinomies, and heresies of annihilationism])’”. In contrast it has been incorrectly asserted that affirmation of the atman is = sassatavada (conventionally deemed ‘eternalism’). However the Pali term sasastavada is never associated with the atman, but that the atman was an agent (karmin) in and of samsara which is subject to the whims of becoming (bhava), or which is meant kammavada (karma-ism, or merit agencyship); such as sassatavada in sutta = “atta ca so loka ca” (the atman and the world [are one]), or: ‘Being (sat, atthiti [views of either sabbamatthi ‘the all is entirety’, and sabbamekattan ‘the all is one’s Soul’ [SN 2.77] both are heresies of perpetualism]). Sasastavada is the wrong conception that one is perpetually (sassata) bound within samsara and that merit is the highest attainment for either this life or for the next. The heretical antinomy to nihilism (vibhava, or = ucchedavada) is not, nor in sutta, the atman, but bhava (becoming, agencyship). Forever, or eternal becoming is nowhere in sutta identified with the atman, which is “never an agent (karmin)”, and “has never become anything” (=bhava). These antinomies of bhava (sassatavada) and vibhava (ucchedavada) both entail illogical positions untenable to the Vedantic or Buddhist atman; however the concept of “eternalism” as = atman has been the fallacious secondary crutch for supporting the no-atman commentarialists position on anatta implying = there is no atman.
insane statement of stupidity
as long as their is identification, there is suffering.
Your brain is small on the subject, obviously.
Atta hi paramo piya "Atman is the dearest beloved"
Go spend 20 years learning Pali, I dont give a shit about your worthless opinions, only doctrine.
F.I.S.H Paragraph 3. The body of every human being is composed of eight material elements: The five gross material elements - solids, liquids, gases, fire/heat and ether/space and the three subtle material elements - the mind, the intellect and the ego. Each of the five gross material elements corresponds to one of the senses of the body. E.g. in outer space where there is a vacuum (ether), one can detect sounds via the ear, whereas solid matter can be seen with the eyes, felt with the sense of touch, tasted with the tongue, smelt with the nose and heard with the ear. Beyond these eight material elements is the true self - the eternal soul, which pervades the entire body. That explains why we say "This is my hand" "This is my mind". Who is the owner of the body? It is us, the anti-matter, the inextinguishable spiritual spark, the soul ! We, the soul, are eternally immutable and are by nature situated in unadulterated bliss and in perfect knowledge of the absolute truth. This purity has been “covered” and corrupted by sin (or selfishness). The body is merely a temporary vehicle for this ever-existing spiritual entity, for as Lord Jesus Christ said "The body counts for nothing - it is the spirit which gives life".
One who considers himself to be nothing more than a physical (and mental/intellectual) body is no more intelligent than an ignorant ass or cow.
To read the remaining thirty-nine paragraphs of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, which the God of all gods has graciously given to His Prophet on Earth, email:
the1965@hotmail.com
with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field.
Theoria Apophasis What ever teaching you are following is obviously not removing any greed or hatred in your life. Read your replies, I am shocked you could say to understand the true teachings of the Buddha and then look down on others with words like 'son' and 'boy'. Perhaps less study and more practice would do you good.
youre off topic fool, stick to doctrine.
Eso kaya na me so atta (= anatta)
Ohhhh wait, youre a FOOL who cannot translate Pali !
The best way to promote Buddhism is to make it easy to understand by lay people. This lecture is interesting and comprehensive but too academic and make it even more complex IMO. Self is difficult to describe so make it easy.
Brother Billy what actually connect one life and another life, we know Buddha said on the past i was born as this and later life i was born as that
Brilliant speech.
Thanks.
Besides this, seeing things in particular is a great way to clarify logical subset confusions. Creating logical sets though is quite useful for statistical analysis, as long as all factors are considered. It saves time and energy to use containers for groups of things in many endeavors. Makes one wonder to what particular depth Buddhists can achieve on the scale from energy string, quark,atom,molecule,aggregate and so on.
Quantum physics are normal in Buddha's time. What we call 'super-natural' is not useful to get rid of real sufferings. Buddha talked about relative and ultimate truth. We can choose to evolve whatever way. No one can obstruct your freedom.
Nice, but I think Douglas Hofstadter pinned it down more precisely in his strange book "I Am A Strange Loop": the illusion of self arises fundamentally as a result, not of emotion, but of representarion. The sense of a self is a type of level-crossing feedback loop (a strange loop) which occurs when the apparati of representation end up forming a representation of those very apparati of representation.
great talk and breakdown. does he cover self/no-self in-depth in any of his books? i'd like to explore more.
57 min > Buddhist perspective of Anatta
thank you very much
Another excellent lecture....
Yeah, Theravada @Zen Billion
Waheed Soulmystic @Zen Billion
Tat Tvam Asi, "Thou art That" is one of the mahavakyas in Vedantic
Santana Dharma.
Universal energy never rose and will never cease. Universal energy causes the rise and fall of the galaxies, milky way and the solar system within it self. Human beings like all other organism within this universal energy rise and fall.It is a perpetual vibrant cosmic dance of energy being transferred to matter and matter to energy.But as an entity the universal energy has no birth or death. " Poornamada ....."
This is a Buddhist pov not Vedanta/ Brahmanic. Differences in opinion do exist even amongst mystics. It may be convenient to blur them all together but they are distinct but inter related pov
@@pwwka999 absolutely, Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu
In many talks by Bhante Punnaji/Billy Tan we are told specifically that "there are no objects in the world", that everything is a mental construct and all we see is light. In this talk reference the dog, but in all cases, we are also told that we see light that has been reflected from the dog or whatever it is. This means that there actually IS a dog "out there" doesn't it?? Even if we have only seen the lightwaves reflected from it and constructed the image in our heads. The light is reflected from an object, so how can they say there are no objects in the world? I wish I could understand this point. I also wonder, if all we see is light and the images are constructed inside our brains, why we need glasses?
Oriana Have you ever had a hallucination? I had a visual hypnogogic hallucination once; I woke up in the morning and I saw a dress on a hanger hung over the top of my closet door. The thing was, I knew I had no such dress (it was a white shift dress with some sort of calligraphy on it) and yet it appeared to be there as clear as anything that "actually existed". Obviously it wasn't as simple as light waves hitting my eyes, sending signals to my brain, and manifesting as the perception of a dress. It's just that my sleep brainwaves were persisting and my brain interpreted those as the existence of lightwaves indicating the existence of a dress. Likewise, have you seen some of these trippy videos created by the Google DeepMind AI? It "sees" faces-animals, humans, etc-where there are none because its capacity to make connections between photos it has processed and the photo it is currently looking at is set to a higher sensitivity than we are used to. It's like when people see Jesus' face in burnt toast: it's not really there; it's there because we saw it before and want to see it again. It's all a terrible mess!
Thanks Great Explanation
Could it be that Buddha ( historical) saw the 'self/Self' as a hindrance to the beginner/ novice mind so taught against its existence as his chief aim was to alleviate suffering and confusion but on an advanced esoteric level could there be some mystical 'thing' that is there?
James Bradley could it be that your trying to seek comfort in the false idea of self/ego
The whole is larger than the sum of it's parts. That whole which is greater than 4 when 2 is added to 2, is the self .
That hammer experiment was bunk lets just say if your mind truly thought your hand was hit with a hammer you have a much stronger reaction
The self is an emotional concept 9:43
1:01:35
1. He has chosen just a few 'scientists' to quote from when trying to reinforce his ideas. In reality often there are always differing often very opposing theories from the scientic world.
2. The 'brain' is a relatively new emerging area yet to be fully and exactly understood.
The above meaning that almost anyone capable of speaking eloquently and seemingly 'in the know' and armed with a well put together (and convincing) presentation can appear as though their conclusions are accurate and definitive.
Q. Who or what is it that determines/decides upon the extent of 'karma' and more importantly who or what is it attributable to if there's nothing (no self) to attribute it to?
Q. If a new born baby (without having any experiences, memories, perceptions etc etc) is pricked with a needle would he/she find it cry out, be indifferent, laugh? ..how did this response come about in a 1 day old human being?
In reality, there are many different schools of thought, no one truly has the answers to the greatest mysteries of life!
My final though is this ..how does it help mankind for us to believe there is no-self, nothing is real (not even a dog)? ....surely compassion, love, morality, caring, happiness etc etc are nurtured and in existence through the belief there is a 'me and that me is part of a 'we' ...and all are here for a reason ...and that reason suggests a creator of somekind.
And IF ..just IF we are ALL part of some grand design by some Creator, might there be many things that we dont know and may never have the understanding to know!
Peace
+Karl BHX Hi Karl, somehow your other post got deleted or something. Or I can't find it.
But your questions do have answers, so I feel I should at least attempt a response even if it is 8 months later.
". Who or what is it that determines/decides upon the extent of 'karma' and more importantly who or what is it attributable to if there's nothing (no self) to attribute it to?"
There is no "who"--that is the first problem. Nor really a what. Because reality is one automatic, infinitely interdependent process, there is no need for a grand King to decide things like this. It is just a huge massive web of factors at play since the big bang (and before in previous universes if you buy that cyclic universe theory which Buddha asserted).
"Q. If a new born baby (without having any experiences, memories, perceptions etc etc) is pricked with a needle would he/she find it cry out, be indifferent, laugh? ..how did this response come about in a 1 day old human being?"
The baby is born with the instinct to perceive pain. This is due to the DNA which controls the central nervous system's development. I'm not sure what this has to do with Buddha's message; can you elaborate?
"In reality, there are many different schools of thought, no one truly has the answers to the greatest mysteries of life! "
That is your belief. You can choose to keep that belief or do some investigation into some very basic questions, such as what is free will, for example. Or, in direct experience, is there a witness to experience, or just the experience? In seeing, is there only the seen, or is there actually a seer seeing things as it sort of seems? Notice how the brain works. Notice how thoughts come in to interpret experience and make it less direct. Notice how various sense streams are woven together to produce one apparently coherent experience with an apparent experiencer at the center.
"My final though is this ..how does it help mankind for us to believe there is no-self, nothing is real (not even a dog)? ....surely compassion, love, morality, caring, happiness etc etc are nurtured and in existence through the belief there is a 'me and that me is part of a 'we' ...and all are here for a reason ...and that reason suggests a creator of somekind.
"
In fact it is just the opposite. Compassion is to help folks become free of suffering. That can't happen unless one has insight into the cause of suffering. One cannot substitute wisdom for beliefs. I can tell you that there is a creator God, but that is logically impossible, since the creator God would have had to come from somewhere, and even if the creator God came from nowhere, the creator God's decisions would be determined by conditions, just like everything else, and hence it would not actually be a God but rather a force.
As long as one is dreaming that there is a self, then one will likely also dream there is a creator God. Because that is all part of the same faulty logic of a witness that is outside of reality and able to modify reality "at will" without anything determining its will.
It is only when one understands that everything one does creates conditions for future happenings (and is a result of previous conditions), that one realizes the importance of correct view and activity.
"And IF ..just IF we are ALL part of some grand design by some Creator, might there be many things that we dont know and may never have the understanding to know!
"
If we want to argue that we are too lowly/limited to ever know the truth, that's a really good way to never know the truth. The only way to know if we can figure it out is to look and see. Do things happen due to conditions? Look and see. What does free will actually mean in reality? Is there actually an observer or is it just a sense of an observer which distorts experience and makes it less direct?
Check out LiberationUnleashed.com for some guidance in this process. And sorry if I've said anything offensive. That was surely not my aim.
Joel R - Forgive me, I am pretty busy right now, but can I ask a very sincere and what I feel (perceive) to be a reasonable question - why are you 'challenging' my and so many other people's comments, thoughts etc; particularly as it's been say 8months ago (longer or less in some cases). Now I may have coined the wrong words in how I've phrased the question but I think you get my drift. I genuinely would like to know what your person motivation is. Thanks
p.s. I will endeavour asap to set aside some time to read your comments and refresh my memory re. my historical comments and those made by other contributors. Metta to all!
Hi Karl, I actually got a notification that someone responded to my comment (not sure if this was accurate or if it was a reply to someone's reply to my comment). So I started replying to comments that seemed like they were asking for a reply, such as yours. If you don't want people to answer your questions, why not delete the questions?
My personal motiviation is to clarify some things that a) people are asking for clarification on, and b) that have dogged me most of my life and caused me immense suffering. In other words, I am motivated by compassion, the desire to help. Are there other motivations at work perhaps? Yeah, probably a whole ton of them. Never said I was perfect, and I don't even know what a perfect responder would sound like.
I do find that it can be somewhat pointless sometimes to help people gain clarity--some people actually don't want clarity (or aren't yet ready for it). But on the other hand there have been some people that have thanked me immensely for what I've shown them (rather, what they've realized for themselves with a little clarification from me, which in turn came from someone else giving me clarification, and so on ad infinitum).
Buddha said that the greatest gift you can give is the gift of the dhamma (or at least that is what I remember from my readings). Obviously I don't have the level of wisdom that Buddha had, but even he met with quite a number of people who had no idea what he was talking about & even got angry that he claimed to have some answers. Still, I'm very glad he went on spreading the wisdom that he had the good fortune to obtain.
+Joel R - +Joel R - I began to read you reply to my polite question but was surprised to see... "If you don't want someone to answer your question why don't you delete it?“... That's somewhat superfluous (and dare I say it suggests an emotional undertone). As I said my question was sincere; as such we not veiled in anyway.
My motivation was simply because you strike me as someone who is searching for (or needing) something far beyond the answering or 'clarification' of questions (historical in my and some other people's case). Your response to my question reinforces that right or wrong perception/idea in my mind.
With respect, the me, myself, I seems very very prominent in you, and you evidently are making assumptions about those you engage... This contributes heavily to a condescending overtone in you comments (my opinion only).
Humbly, may I suggest some food for reflection:
- Is it possible that you've given, or rather sent a too long and complicated a OTT message to say a young person or someone for who English needs to be communicated at a basic level?
- Kālāma Sutta (The Kālāma Sutta is also used for advocating prudence by the use of sound logical reasoning arguments and the dialectic principles for inquiries in the practice that relates to the discipline of seeking truth, wisdom and knowledge whether it is religious or not. In short, the Kālāma Sutta is opposed to blind faith, dogmatism and belief spawned from specious reasoning. [not my quote].
- Did the Buddha categorically rebut the possibility of what is colloquially referred to as a soul, spirit or real self (the latter 'real self' I believe often referred to by the like of Mooji - I'm sure you may have heard of him).
Anyway, just a few things I hope you will reflect upon and that I humbly hope will be of some small benefit at least.
Final thought, or rather admission - you know, for over a year I have attended a Vihara, been in close contact with several elderly venerable bhantes, and never once have any of them been so deep or absolute as you have been. Actually, it took weeks of me doing chores and meditating and a long 10day retreat before they even answered my simplest of questions. True story.
Peace
The notion of karma, rebirth, dualism, etc indeed contradicts the notion of selflessness or at least makes it utterly pointless.
All ready off we go about ,new age , maybe the ,lith/ and others parts of the gut ,are full of the rubbish that is given us our moods , if we are coming from the flesh and blood pressure, Cut that connection with, one,s hope to get out of here in one Pace, yes and that will be it all , not a thing apart from the flesh and blood , that's gotta be a bit of a great lost !!!!!!!!!
The lecture is coming from the Theravada bias that the Buddha denied the self. He did not. The Buddha only pointed out what was not the self; that we should not identify our self with what is not really our self. For example, the Buddha taught that physical shape (rupa) is not our self or feeling is not our self. It is when we cling to what is not our self does suffering come to be.
so what is ;self' then?
The noun ātman is generally translated by the pronoun "self" but that is not the classical definition that the Buddha understood which was established long before the birth of the Buddha. To cut to the chase, ātman means the 'animative principle." We could not move the psycho-physical body without, so to speak, a prime-mover. The ātman also is the Buddha-nature according to the Mahayana-mahaparinirvana Sutra. It is most intrinsic but covered over and hidden by the an-ātman (what is not the ātman which is a configuration of the ātman). Only Buddha's realize that this world is a configuration of the ātman. Non-buddhas only see configurations (i.e., phenomena) not its substance or ātman. Science cannot answer the question, "What is the universe made of?" The Buddha does.
With respect to the Theravada bias, unfortunately Buddha and/or the first Buddhist practitioner's arent here to ask what it was precisely that they believed in regards to anatta. If as you suggest the Buddha believed essentially what the Vedantin's believed why did he then reformulate the already ancient view of reincarnation and deem it 'rebirth' but not re incarnating of some 'soul'?
mujaku your clinging to your false ego
You are presuming there is a self outside of what the Buddha taught is not self (the five aggregates). But in no where did the Buddha ever say there is a self! Sabbe Dhamma Anatta - all phenomenon are not self!
Another vain attempt to smuggle the idea of self into Buddhism
Is the self corresponding to the non-self body? Without the body, you can not experience 5 skandas. So ironically, are we just equal to bodies?
Define "body"...
Joel R Your physcical Body. Arms legs and etc. When our bodies die nothing survives. it is ironic.
perception exists without a body although one might not call it exactly perception... in fact the body is merely an illusion necessary for identification
+umut barat We are body-mind entities, the feeling of being a self is a subjective one based on memories (personal and collective). What we think and feel as a self is a mere mental construct, a concept that has no bearing in reality. And it stops to exist when you stop thinking about it.
Katarina Phang If there is no self, than what gets reborn? Nothing.
Thanks for sharing but it doesn't solve my confusion. You're simply stating that self is just a mental construct to create subjective experience. We all can assume anything so to support a hypothesis, isn't it so?
Buddha denies 3 things about the self: (1) that the body or anything arising from the body, the aggregates, or conditioned phenomenom, are the self. (2) that there is literally no self. (3) the Hindu/Brahmin doctrine that Brahma is the self, the one and only self in the universe and everyone shares that one soul. / Buddha actually DID NOT deny the Western conception of the self, i.e. that we each have our own immaterial soul. See Samyutta Nikaya 44.10, where all 3 points are actually found.
he does negate the eternal, individual soul.
"he does negate the eternal, individual soul."
No, what he denies is a doctrine the translations call "eternalism" which holds to an eternal CORPORATE soul, i.e. that you don't really exist as an individual but that your soul is merely a part/piece of a larger whole, namely Brahma/God. What Buddha clearly affirms is the eternal individual soul. Otherwise, there could neither be reincarnation NOR the deathless perfect supreme security of Nibbana. Try explaining how Buddha went to Nibbana if he has no eternal individual soul. What went there? Memories of what his aggregates used to be? Give me a break. This is what's wrong with modern Buddhism. People don't think it through. They just hate Christianity and so they reject the concept of a soul, and make Buddhism their tank for bulldosing Christianity, although Buddhism is not an anti-metaphyisical system like they like to pretend. Its a more sophisticated metaphysical system. If you really want to bulldose Christianity, why not do it with more sophisticated metaphysics rather than with atheist anti-metaphysics?
David Brainerd There is no concept of reincarnation in buddhism, its called rebirth. If you want to check out for yourself, look for the 72 wrong views discourse of the Pali Canon. Can you please point out where did you read that Buddha talked about an eternal individual soul? And Anatta is not a "modern buddhist" invention, in fact is the oldest and most distinctive stance of buddhist as a system of thought. Read Nagarjuna and Boddhidharma for example. If you want even more proof of this, check out Shankaras criticism of buddhism as contemporary brahmanical and jain criticism of buddhist doctrine that focus exactly on your pont, how buddha denied any substancial self and essence of our existences, the atman or eternal soul.
Last and most important, maybe the problem lies in that you cant reconcile your christian background with Buddhism and this is confusing you. Also, the metaphysical inclinations of Buddhism were developed after hundred of years of evolution and contact with other systems. In fact, the pali canon demonstrates that early Buddhism was clearly against all sort of metaphysical speculation, focusing only on practical means to attain nibbana.
"There is no concept of reincarnation in buddhism, its called rebirth." Dummies say that all the time, but in reality it doesn't fix anything for the soul-deniers. Both require a soul. Mere memories don't get reborn, and if they did, who would care enough to get them enlightened so they could go to Nirvana?
David Brainerd You dont go to Nirvana, Nirvana is not a metaphysical place. Go to the Sutras and try to read them without the interference of christian doctrine, even if you dont support buddhism.
If Buddhism claims there is MIND and MATTER: they say they are both beginingless. Am I right? Ok, than how do they claim they are also endless? With the death of sun, it can end both of them forever.
Buddhism is not an ontological belief system. If you want to learn about matter, study physics. If you want to learn to be happy, PRACTICE Buddhas teachings.
+umut barat The death of the sun does not mean the death of matter, since physics shows us that matter is only ever changed (into energy or other matter), never created or destroyed. In any case mind vs matter is a dualistic mode of perception.
Joel R matter will go on and exist but after the death of sun human beings are gone forever.
perhaps, depends whether you subscribe to the cyclical universe expansion/contraction theory (which Buddha did btw), but anyway i'm not sure it matters either way...
Joel R after the death of sun, the human species will be gone forever. this is a scientific fact. there wont be humany anymore. so nihilism and science mostly agree at this point.
Anatta but rebirth. Re means to “do again” so why is there a RE birth if there is No Self??? Then it should not be called rebirth this is just Nihilism.
I AINT WATCHING ALLAT 🔥🔥
Atman the sanskrit word should not be translated as self or the ego.
Tat Tvam Asi, thou art that ,
You see, in our Buddhist perspective the Atman which we say is other than five aggregates and we totally disagree with that theory.
Because you have not fully understood
If there is no self then what ha the Buddha gone unto what does Tathagata mean? What is the “that” in the phrase “that thou art” it is something. It may not be an objective self but it is something. Emptiness does not exist.
This person is mixing up ‘conventional reality’ and ‘ultimate reality.’ Science operates in the ‘CONVENTIONAL world.’ Buddhism (and all of spirituality) is about understanding ULTIMATE REALITIES.
Ultimate realities are about the flow of our experience. The following can be said about this flow of experience:
(i) In everyone of us (including scientists), within all our experiences, there is nothing outside of the five aggregates that are continuously arising and ceasing. If we look at our moment-to-moment experience, each moment arises and ceases (i.e., each moment is impermanent).
(ii) Whether we analyze the outside world (analyze trees, the sky, talk about evolution) or the inside world (circulatory system, or the brain and the nervous system) all this happens within a mind stream that is continuously arising and ceasing.
(iii) The concept of a self also happens within this mind stream as an arising and ceasing (impermanent) thought moment. This can happen in 20 ways (would take too long to explain).
Also, I did not hear the word “impermanence” mentioned even once during this talk.
+Diane Actually, science is incredibly useful for understanding the ultimate reality. Logic alone suffices to get a head start, but there does come a point at which you realize that your mode of perception is not reality itself, and is nothing more than an obfuscation of reality. That's when meditation starts in ernest and if you are very ardent and sincere about liberation you are likely to penetrate the veil of self--Buddha said one could do this in only a few weeks if they have right view etc, and it seemed to happen that way for me. That doesn't mean I'm fully enlightened, far from it, but I've seen (at various times) what reality actually is minus the illusion of a center of reference, or a background witness, & hence subject/object duality, all of which is fairly unscientific as Bro. Tan and Sam Harris and many others explain. It is perfect flow, disjoint yet infinitely interpentrating, with everything self-known.
Outside world and inside world and mind vs matter (or awareness vs awared) is ultimately just the habitual mode of viewing reality.
JOEL R, MAN, YOU ARE JUST A THEORIST, PRACTICE IT, THAT'S WHAT DHAMMA IS. BUDDHA TAUGHT HIS DHAMMA FOR YOU TO PRACTICE, TEACHINGS GIVEN IS THE PATH TO PRACTICE, THESE TYPE OF GUYS AS HE SAYS ' STREETWISDOM' HIS NAME, HE CAN NOT UNDERSTAND EVEN THE BASICS OF DHAMMA LET ALONG TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO THE WORLD ANATTA HIS WAY, WHAT A LOOSER, YOU CAN'T RE WRITE DHAMMA, BUDDHAS'S METHODOLOGY IS VERY CLEAR AND PRECISE WHAT WAS ALREADY MENTIONED IN PALI CANNON, UNFORTUNATELY THE NON PALI READERS HAVE TO DEPEND ON TRANSLATION BUT THAT IS NOT SO EASY WITH SOME OF THE PALI WORDS. SCIENCE IS INCREDIBLE ONLY IF YOU ARE A PERSON WHO IS INTERESTED IN LIVING IN THE MATERIAL WORLD AND LOOK FOR APPROVALS (DOUBTING THOMAS'S ) (THIS IS WHY ANICCHA), MAY I ASK YOU A SIMPLE QUESTION, IF YOU ARE A BUDDHIST WHY DO YOU NEED TO KNOW MODERN SCIENCE? FORTUNATELY BUDDHISM REMAINED IN THE EAST UN SPOILED, THE WEST ALWAYS HAVE A HABIT OF SPOILING EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE, THANK GOD THEY COULD NOT GET TO BUDDHISM TO DO THAT. BY THE WAY DON'T THINK THAT SCIENCE WAS DISCOVERED 500 YEARS AGO, 6000+ YEAR AGO RIG VEDA A SOCIETY IN INDIA, HIGHLY CIVILISED AND ADVANCE IN MANY WAYS ( ONLY RECENTLY FOUND ANCIENT TEXT IN AFGHANISTAN BY CHINESE MINING COMPANY WHICH WAS IN INDIAN VEDIC TEXT THAT WAS GIVEN TO A UNIVERSITY IN INDIA FOR TRANSLATION AND THEY FOUND OUT MATHEMATICAL SPACE PROGRAMS AND ANTI GRAVITATIONAL (IRDI IN SANSKRIT) SPACE CRAFT MANUALS ETC. AND ONE SUCH SPACE CRAFT WAS FOUND IN A CAVE IN AFGHANISTAN RECENTLY BY THE USA SOLDIERS YOU PROBABLY HEARD ABOUT THIS NO DOUBT, SO THIS IS WHAT BUDDHA MENTIONED ANNICHA, PROCESS OF CHANGING (IMPERMANENCE) , DUE TO THAT COMES UNSATISFACTORY CONDITION (DUKKA) THEREFORE, UNDERSTAND WHAT ANNATTA - NON SELF IS IN ORDER TO BE NEUTRAL (TO ATTAIN NIRVANA) THIS (THILAKANA) IS THE MOST IMPORTANT DISCOVERY IN BUDDHISM.
Raj, I am not a theorist. I know nibbana quite well from experience. :)
My understanding of the dhamma concords with that which you will find in the Bahiya sutta, as well as the writings at the blog AwakeningToReality (on blogspot), as well as the excellent 33 sermons on nibbana by Venerable Ñanananda, which you can find online for free.
You are right that we do not need modern science to understand dependent origination. All we need is basic logic. Buddha's fundamental teaching is that everything appears due to conditions ("this" is dependent on "that", and with the cessation of "this", "that" also ceases; a teaching which roots out dualism without instituting monism). From that, one can easily derive that there is nobody actually here apart from the appearance of individual conditions which are actually part of the infinite web of conditions. Easy to understand intellectually, but hard to "realize." The illusion of self and "free will" is a strong tendency that requires a lot of sustained effort to fully dissolve.
you are full of shit, If you have experienced Nibbhana, you would have been Arahath, Looks to me you have come out from a comic book, you don't have a clue what Dhamma is about, such ego and ignorance, there is no end for your samsara.
Raj - I do not think you should get so angry with Joel. Anger is not conducive for enlightenment. Calm your mind - the Buddha said not to get angry even with people who criticize him. If you truly want to follow the Buddhist path, cultivating anger and shouting at people can be a HUGE hindrance. Also, who knows - Joel might be an enlightened being - perhaps a stream enterer. We do not know, so it is best not to assume. All we can do is to diligently work towards our own enlightenment (instead of criticizing others).
I wish you well.
If the mind is caused by the brain then what is entering Samadhi😂😂😂😂😂 My Non-Self??? Foolishness how can people not see this foolishness this man is saying?
the buddha didn't "deny" the soul or atman... he acknowledged that the perception of soul arises... and everything that arises will cease. it is not wise to become attached to atman. That is what anatta is. The non attachment to atman. Putting aside the existential questions of "who am i" in order to focus on truth itself without the dilution of personalization. that is my perception of anatta.
thegodfigure wrong, the false idea of soul arises, does the wifi that's powering your computer have a self, no it's just wifi, when the computer dies it links to a new computer
The Buddha firmly declared "sabbe dhamma anatta". All phenomenon are non-self!
If there is No Self then there is no Darma Wheel…because there is no Self to be stuck on the wheel in the first place therefore there is no need to follow any 8 fold path cause we will all just die anyway and the self which you say is a construct will just fall away naturally. There is no way the Buddha taught this because this teaching is simply foolishness.
The Pali tradition deals directly with the original suttas while the other traditions add a whole bunch of philosophy and pile on all kind of things that steer far from what the Buddha taught. Buddha Gotama said, Sabbe Dhamma Annata, all realities are not self. He never said there is no self. He never said what is beyond these things we cling to as self. And when he discusses sunnata, emptieness, he describes it as empty of what is not there. The reason for this is that the belief in a self, or Atman, in any form results in clinging at the final stage preventing full liberation, as is apparent in some the angry reactions to this video in this comment thread. Any idea of self results in clinging. When the final liberation occures, there is an experience that cannot be put into words and the Buddha made no attempt at doing so. This idea of self, especially an eternal soul, is the core illusion preventing human beings from living freely and clearly in accord with the Mystery. All things perceivable through the five senses or nameable are purely ideal and clinging to these things creates all our suffering.
+paganpants86 no such passage exists, youre A FOOL
Atta’sarana anan’n’asarana.--------"Soul
as a refuge with none other as refuge” DN 2.100
“Atta’ ca me so saranam gati
ca” ----------“The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto” Jatakapali
1441 Akkhakandam
"Soul the refuge (Saran.am.attano)"
DN 2.120
Jataka-2 #1341 “tattha atta’
va sarathi” --------“the Soul is Charioteer”
+paganpants86 Oh yeah the Buddha said there is no self (Anatta). The explanation and understanding of it is often not accurate though. You can't intellectualize this thing. You have to experience it to see it.
Katarina, no such passage exists, period.
ABCDEF are an-atta (not the Soul)
there is such passage of STAND ALONE of anatta
+Theoria Apophasis When you experience no self, you will understand what Buddha was talking about. It most certainly is NO SELF, with no center of reference. No reference at all. No background, no witness. Compare that with being God, which is another experience/realization also called One Mind. You will see that Buddha had the true liberating insight which is incredibly rare.
Even with just logic you can figure out that there is no self, however. Self implies a witness, yet witness implies an entity which exists outside of reality. Unless you have another idea of what self means.
Here is some good reading on the topic also: awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self_1.html
so your brain dead???? experience no self?
how FING stupid are you boy??? tell me who experienced it??????? IDIOT!!!!
let me know when you can quote DOCTRINE,
buddhist doctrine trumps your pathetic SPEW