Simple answer: That which is responsible for choosing the noble path is the person. In Pali, we speak of attā, sabhāva, sabhāvena, satta. But in English, we translate all of them as "self." Misunderstandings are largely an issue of language. They also arise because most people cannot bear complexity. There is no attā, there is no sabhāva, but there is the person (satta). It exists conventionally. It is apprehended by conventional valid cognition. It just is not found under ultimate analysis. Likewise, odours are not found by an eye consciousness but it doesn't mean that odours are utterly non-existent.
@@lacycek Indeed, it happens to nicely play with Buddhist notions. One can be playful about it. Unfortunately, we cannot always choose English words that have a fitting epistemology. "Compassion" is an example. That's why it's important to memorize the Buddhist definitions. In the case of a person, it's a "mind possessor" (be it human or not). In the case of compassion, it's "the wish for others to be free from suffering."
The changing self when practicing mindfulness will lead all to choose the noble path. If there is a self, we are forever stuck and do not have a chance to choose the noble path. Very good answer.🙏
You have a self but it may just be an illusion (illusion does not mean doesn't exist, but rather may not be what it seems). You experience it, but it's not real in the sense of it being a fixed unchanging entity. This is good news because it means you can change. And you need a strong sense of self to integrate into the world, but to understand the truth can be freeing.
I’ve been reflecting a lot about both: The question and the answer. I’m coming out today just for saying my findings within myself: Self and NonSelf interact for as long as mindfulness is present there, one is present, one lives oneself presence in the experience of the continuos instant of the present moment. Not sure if my findings corresponds to reality or delusion but this is how it feels to me.
I agree. The question and the answer tend to point to a “self” that exists only for a particular moment in time and changes continually from one moment to the next.
@@garyarthurs : I suppose it all depends on the context in which words: “self and nonself “ are used. According to Buddhist teachings the self is empty because it lacks of individual sovereignty to sustain itself. It depends of other elements. It is made of nonself elements. All in nature is like that.
you're right - On the absolute truth , there is no self ; on the relative truth , there is a self - lit like the law - law is created by man but it is effective as long as man enforce it .
@@yongjiean9980 : vì có independent origination ( hay interdependent origination) nên vạn pháp là vô ngã ( no self ) và vạn sự là vô thường . Buddha dạy đừng chấp ( hay bám chắc ) , đừng chấp có cũng đừng chấp không ; là vì có một cái ngã tạm bợ , hay thay đổi - cái ngã trường tồn bất biến thì không có . Người chấp vô ngã thì bảo tôi đã không có ngã rồi , thì chết là hết ( chủ nghĩa hư vô ) - Phật dạy Ta có cái ngã tạm bợ với thân ngũ uẩn và dùng nó để tu hành , để dứt luân hồi sinh tử . Từ vô lượng kiếp ta có vô lượng cái ngã khác nhau . Người chấp ngã ( cho rằng ngã có thật ) thì bảo rằng nếu tin vào Chúa Trời sau khi chết , linh hồn ( hay ngã ) sẽ lên Nước Trời sống đời đời sung sướng , nếu không tin sẽ bị Chúa Trời đày xuống hỏa ngục đời đời , Người Ấn giáo cho rằng tu hành thành công thì tiểu ngã ( Ãtman) sẽ bay lên kết hợp với đại ngã ( Brahman) , tồn tại mãi mãi -
4:38 “Hopefully we will make it clearer tomorrow” - I hope there is another YT video with that part of the session. This one left me with a lot of questions (about intention, choice & action, and what is meant by “self”). Which of Thay’s books might help?
Non-duality = no doing, no time, no reincarnation, no motion, no doer, no choice/free-will (what absurd vanity), no responsibility, Immortality! Ego = Thought = Duality = mortality
Its almost ridiculous, if theres no self what gets reborn? What is the need to be ethical and morality? Pholosopher AK Coomaraswamy famously said “buddhism today is famous for everything that originally the Buddha did not teach”.
It sounds like you don't know what the buddha originally taught, no self is certainly part of his teachings. All that gets reborn is that feeling of awareness, of being alive. All of your memories, thoughts, and egos are left behind. That doesn't really qualify as a self.
It's not ridiculous as modern science is saying the same thing on the self. There IS a self. You are experiencing a dualistic experience. It's just an illusion ( illusion does not mean doesn't exist. it means may not be what it seems). What you are is a constantly changing biological system. What creates a coherent sense of self is your autobiographical memory along with a sense that your riding around in your body--- what your EXPERIENCING is real, but it may not be ACTUALLY real. None of this is meant to be scary or negative. As Thich said it inspires hope because you can change for the better. You still need a strong sense of self to integrate into the world and to lead your life with morals and ethics as we want less suffering in the world. The only difference is to understand that you aren't some fixed unchanging thing at the centre. The Buddha's big revelation was of no self, and when you understand this you can move towards truth.
@@davidruss718 Memories, thoughts, and egos are not left behind. You can't get rid of it. It's not meant to get rid of. You are meant to just cultivate wisdom and to experience occasional moments of enlightenment.
"If there's no self what gets reborn?" What's being born is just an identity. The reason why a new identity is created when one dies (rebirth) is because of ignorance to impermanence perpetuated by fear of it. Who is ignorant and fearful? The one who needs an answer to the question to find something permanent to identify with. "What is the need to be ethical and morality?" What is the need to be greedy or hurt others if you have no self to defend? Why would you cause any unnecessary suffering if there's no survival strategy driving that behavior? How can you hate anyone if there's no you separate from them?
It is a great question , But Thich Nhất Hạnh was living in duality mode like most of us ,so He could not answer this question .May be Tony Parsons, Jim Newman may answer this.
Nope! The Buddha did not teach there is no self! He only taught there is no permanent everlasting substantial self! Because we perceive a "self" from the five aggregates that is changing in flux and subject to changes. He taught the causality and conditioned phenomenon of Dependent Origination that brings a renwed existence of a new set of five aggregates in rebirth and it is also precisely the fallacy of a permanent self that sets the process of conditioned genesis of inherent suffering (renewed becoming)
yes he taught " no self " . Hindus and Jains thought the universe is made up of this pair : - An eternal spiritual self ( which possesses svabhava - svabhava = self - essence ) . - And a not-self made up of matter . But the Buddha said that neither the self nor the not-self are substantial . They are only insubstantial phantasmagoric , dream-- like event processes , concepts such as the Atman or self are just the conventions of language Instead of talking about the ' self or "Not self " , the buddhists talks about their own concept : No-self ( an-Atman)
Buddhist teachings, especially in regards to Karma and rebirth etc. etc. really make little sense if there is not some sort of self that at least resembles the self of a previous lifetime. Who is subject to karmic consequences? Who is subject to being reborn in higher or lower realms? If it is non-existant then why strive for anything? Why strive for monastic life, meditation, awakening etc.? May as well live a materialistic life.
They do make sense though. What Buddhism states is that the "phenomenon" (you call self) that is the subject of karma and rebirth is not permanent and not independent (and thus leads to suffering). You need to consider that phenomenon as a dynamically changing process instead of a static permanent self. It is that process that is reborn, clinging and craving are reborn, not "you".
Karma and rebirth only appear because of the appearance of a subject. When one appears solid, they all appear solid. "If it is all empty then why not live in ignorance?" Because there comes suffering. The primary mover for enlightenment is suffering. Emptiness -> ignorance -> fear -> suffering -> desire for deliverance -> walking the path -> letting go of desire -> surrendering to suffering -> accepting fear -> seeing through ignorance -> emptiness
@@apologeticsofemptiness The problem in such discussions is that usually 99,9% of people responding have little clue what they talk about. Like parrots they only repeat what they have read somewhere. You probably do not even understand the phrase "It is that process that is reborn" ---it is free of any meaning....it is just an empty phrase that holds no value. Again, Karma if it has nothing to do with the person dying, buddhist teachings make little to no sense at all.
@@bike4aday Then the logical conclusion is that enlightenment is for miserable people. I personally have been happy most of my life. Maybe not 100% but the vast majority of my life. So for me there is no "mover" for enlightenment. If it is all empty----there is no one to be moved to enlightenment anyways. Then there are only happenings taking place, thats it. No one to be moved to enlightenment, no one to be pushed to meditate or to live a monastic life etc. Either it happens by its own or not. The most illogical thing is to say: There is no one, all is empty. No "You" should strive for enlightenment, "You" should meditate etc. You are only repeating phrases that you have read somewhere with little to no understanding.
There is higher being riding you. The charioteer. You are the chariot(I) suffering from eons and eons. When one self destruct every piece of chariot, so nothing left to play for the charioteer, only he remain at the end. So, charioteer is Anatta(not me or mine) and chariot is also broken. So, you become master of that higher being. Master of even your master. This is real wisdom. Diogenes said, 'The art of serving a master, is to rule over him'! This body is a chariot for higher being to enjoy. Destruct it and don't call it mine. Unless the chariot is, charioteer remain mounted. If you shatter the chariot, charioteer fell to the ground!
Ask a person who believes there is no self this: What evidence would you require to be convinced that there is a self? I guarantee they won't be able to answer, because they will accept no evidence because they've already made up their mind. Ask them this: If emotions, thoughts, intentions and consciousness doesn't convince you you are a self then what would convince you? Ask: Do I need to not have emotions, thoughts, intentions and consciousness in order to be a self? Do I need to be a brick to be a self or something? Only these kinds of questions have a chance of planting seeds and waking them up. Argumentation just will not work. You need to create doubt in them and get them to reason within themselves, True enlightenment is becoming more aware of of just how much of a self you are and just how amazing and transcendent consciousness is. It shows there truly is an ultimate mind behind the universe (namely God), who is also personal.
Thank you Dave Grohl for this great question
Could have sworn it was Jesus
It is a great question , But Thich Nhất Hạnh was living in duality mode so He could not answer this question .
Simple answer: That which is responsible for choosing the noble path is the person.
In Pali, we speak of attā, sabhāva, sabhāvena, satta. But in English, we translate all of them as "self."
Misunderstandings are largely an issue of language. They also arise because most people cannot bear complexity.
There is no attā, there is no sabhāva, but there is the person (satta). It exists conventionally. It is apprehended by conventional valid cognition. It just is not found under ultimate analysis. Likewise, odours are not found by an eye consciousness but it doesn't mean that odours are utterly non-existent.
Check out etymology of the word "person" ("persona").
@@lacycek Indeed, it happens to nicely play with Buddhist notions. One can be playful about it.
Unfortunately, we cannot always choose English words that have a fitting epistemology. "Compassion" is an example.
That's why it's important to memorize the Buddhist definitions. In the case of a person, it's a "mind possessor" (be it human or not). In the case of compassion, it's "the wish for others to be free from suffering."
@@ffederel somebody said that polish word for compassion is better, it's "współczucie" what literally means "feeling together" or "shared feeling"
much better answer to the question.
The changing self when practicing mindfulness will lead all to choose the noble path. If there is a self, we are forever stuck and do not have a chance to choose the noble path. Very good answer.🙏
You have a self but it may just be an illusion (illusion does not mean doesn't exist, but rather may not be what it seems). You experience it, but it's not real in the sense of it being a fixed unchanging entity. This is good news because it means you can change. And you need a strong sense of self to integrate into the world, but to understand the truth can be freeing.
Who or what is that "you" who have a self?
Everything is created by mind, just because your mind is empty, doesn't mean you can't pick up a salt shaker.
I’ve been reflecting a lot about both: The question and the answer. I’m coming out today just for saying my findings within myself: Self and NonSelf interact for as long as mindfulness is present there, one is present, one lives oneself presence in the experience of the continuos instant of the present moment. Not sure if my findings corresponds to reality or delusion but this is how it feels to me.
I agree. The question and the answer tend to point to a “self” that exists only for a particular moment in time and changes continually from one moment to the next.
@@garyarthurs : I suppose it all depends on the context in which words: “self and nonself “ are used. According to Buddhist teachings the self is empty because it lacks of individual sovereignty to sustain itself. It depends of other elements. It is made of nonself elements. All in nature is like that.
It isn't that 'There is no self' - It's that 'The self is Empty'
One is a nihilistic belief or pointer, the other is a realisation.
Empty of a permanent unchangin essence...
It contradicts atman theory
@Peter T Something being 'empty' does not mean it is 'nothing' or that it does not exist at all.
It is more a question of 'how' it exists.
If there is no self, the buddhist monk was thinking oh no here we go again.
I think it maybe appropriate to say the self the Thay is referring to is the perminant, eternal self - a self that does not change.
you're right - On the absolute truth , there is no self ; on the relative truth , there is a self - lit like the law - law is created by man but it is effective as long as man enforce it .
@@nguoithichhoasim1233 the Buddha avoided both extremes of no self and eternal self and instead taught dependent origination.
@@yongjiean9980 : vì có independent origination ( hay interdependent origination) nên vạn pháp là vô ngã ( no self ) và vạn sự là vô thường .
Buddha dạy đừng chấp ( hay bám chắc ) , đừng chấp có cũng đừng chấp không ; là vì có một cái ngã tạm bợ , hay thay đổi - cái ngã trường tồn bất biến thì không có .
Người chấp vô ngã thì bảo tôi đã không có ngã rồi , thì chết là hết ( chủ nghĩa hư vô ) - Phật dạy Ta có cái ngã tạm bợ với thân ngũ uẩn và dùng nó để tu hành , để dứt luân hồi sinh tử . Từ vô lượng kiếp ta có vô lượng cái ngã khác nhau .
Người chấp ngã ( cho rằng ngã có thật ) thì bảo rằng nếu tin vào Chúa Trời sau khi chết , linh hồn ( hay ngã ) sẽ lên Nước Trời sống đời đời sung sướng , nếu không tin sẽ bị Chúa Trời đày xuống hỏa ngục đời đời , Người Ấn giáo cho rằng tu hành thành công thì tiểu ngã ( Ãtman) sẽ bay lên kết hợp với đại ngã ( Brahman) , tồn tại mãi mãi -
4:38 “Hopefully we will make it clearer tomorrow” - I hope there is another YT video with that part of the session. This one left me with a lot of questions (about intention, choice & action, and what is meant by “self”). Which of Thay’s books might help?
This is AMAZING!! Awesome question....and what a response from Tich Nat Hahn!!! Oh wow!
Non-duality = no doing, no time, no reincarnation, no motion, no doer, no choice/free-will (what absurd vanity), no responsibility, Immortality!
Ego = Thought = Duality = mortality
Its almost ridiculous, if theres no self what gets reborn? What is the need to be ethical and morality? Pholosopher AK Coomaraswamy famously said “buddhism today is famous for everything that originally the Buddha did not teach”.
It sounds like you don't know what the buddha originally taught, no self is certainly part of his teachings. All that gets reborn is that feeling of awareness, of being alive. All of your memories, thoughts, and egos are left behind. That doesn't really qualify as a self.
It's not ridiculous as modern science is saying the same thing on the self. There IS a self. You are experiencing a dualistic experience. It's just an illusion ( illusion does not mean doesn't exist. it means may not be what it seems). What you are is a constantly changing biological system. What creates a coherent sense of self is your autobiographical memory along with a sense that your riding around in your body--- what your EXPERIENCING is real, but it may not be ACTUALLY real. None of this is meant to be scary or negative. As Thich said it inspires hope because you can change for the better. You still need a strong sense of self to integrate into the world and to lead your life with morals and ethics as we want less suffering in the world. The only difference is to understand that you aren't some fixed unchanging thing at the centre. The Buddha's big revelation was of no self, and when you understand this you can move towards truth.
@@davidruss718 Memories, thoughts, and egos are not left behind. You can't get rid of it. It's not meant to get rid of. You are meant to just cultivate wisdom and to experience occasional moments of enlightenment.
Buddhism doesn't teach reincarnation. It teaches rebirth. @David Russ is correct here
"If there's no self what gets reborn?"
What's being born is just an identity. The reason why a new identity is created when one dies (rebirth) is because of ignorance to impermanence perpetuated by fear of it. Who is ignorant and fearful? The one who needs an answer to the question to find something permanent to identify with.
"What is the need to be ethical and morality?"
What is the need to be greedy or hurt others if you have no self to defend? Why would you cause any unnecessary suffering if there's no survival strategy driving that behavior? How can you hate anyone if there's no you separate from them?
It is a great question , But Thich Nhất Hạnh was living in duality mode like most of us ,so He could not answer this question .May be Tony Parsons, Jim Newman may answer this.
Nope! The Buddha did not teach there is no self! He only taught there is no permanent everlasting substantial self! Because we perceive a "self" from the five aggregates that is changing in flux and subject to changes. He taught the causality and conditioned phenomenon of Dependent Origination that brings a renwed existence of a new set of five aggregates in rebirth and it is also precisely the fallacy of a permanent self that sets the process of conditioned genesis of inherent suffering (renewed becoming)
yes he taught " no self " .
Hindus and Jains thought the universe is made up of this pair :
- An eternal spiritual self ( which possesses svabhava - svabhava = self - essence ) .
- And a not-self made up of matter .
But the Buddha said that neither the self nor the not-self are substantial . They are only insubstantial phantasmagoric , dream-- like event processes , concepts such as the Atman or self are just the conventions of language Instead of talking about the ' self or "Not self " , the buddhists talks about their own concept : No-self ( an-Atman)
Doing is happening , but no good or bad , no doer and no one is responsible for what is happening . no one choose , or has freewill .
Bull
@@bm.6349 How appropriate, "bm" has shared what is in his head! ;)
Hm, leider keine Antwort auf die Frage
Buddhist teachings, especially in regards to Karma and rebirth etc. etc. really make little sense if there is not some sort of self that at least resembles the self of a previous lifetime. Who is subject to karmic consequences? Who is subject to being reborn in higher or lower realms? If it is non-existant then why strive for anything? Why strive for monastic life, meditation, awakening etc.? May as well live a materialistic life.
They do make sense though. What Buddhism states is that the "phenomenon" (you call self) that is the subject of karma and rebirth is not permanent and not independent (and thus leads to suffering). You need to consider that phenomenon as a dynamically changing process instead of a static permanent self. It is that process that is reborn, clinging and craving are reborn, not "you".
Karma and rebirth only appear because of the appearance of a subject. When one appears solid, they all appear solid.
"If it is all empty then why not live in ignorance?" Because there comes suffering. The primary mover for enlightenment is suffering.
Emptiness -> ignorance -> fear -> suffering -> desire for deliverance -> walking the path -> letting go of desire -> surrendering to suffering -> accepting fear -> seeing through ignorance -> emptiness
@@apologeticsofemptiness The problem in such discussions is that usually 99,9% of people responding have little clue what they talk about. Like parrots they only repeat what they have read somewhere. You probably do not even understand the phrase "It is that process that is reborn" ---it is free of any meaning....it is just an empty phrase that holds no value. Again, Karma if it has nothing to do with the person dying, buddhist teachings make little to no sense at all.
@@bike4aday Then the logical conclusion is that enlightenment is for miserable people. I personally have been happy most of my life. Maybe not 100% but the vast majority of my life. So for me there is no "mover" for enlightenment.
If it is all empty----there is no one to be moved to enlightenment anyways. Then there are only happenings taking place, thats it. No one to be moved to enlightenment, no one to be pushed to meditate or to live a monastic life etc.
Either it happens by its own or not.
The most illogical thing is to say: There is no one, all is empty. No "You" should strive for enlightenment, "You" should meditate etc.
You are only repeating phrases that you have read somewhere with little to no understanding.
@@markusbieler5384 If you are happy then I am happy for you 😊
Answering to the title of the video. I do not know, but ¨the path¨ is here free of weeds, within a very pleasent ¨landscape¨.
There is higher being riding you. The charioteer. You are the chariot(I) suffering from eons and eons. When one self destruct every piece of chariot, so nothing left to play for the charioteer, only he remain at the end. So, charioteer is Anatta(not me or mine) and chariot is also broken. So, you become master of that higher being. Master of even your master. This is real wisdom. Diogenes said, 'The art of serving a master, is to rule over him'! This body is a chariot for higher being to enjoy. Destruct it and don't call it mine. Unless the chariot is, charioteer remain mounted. If you shatter the chariot, charioteer fell to the ground!
What's this higher being?
Lol, he doesn't gave the answer of the question asked
ou yes, and he didn't answer the question... not one bit.
Do you speak German? Maybe the translator is mistranslating.
Amazing wisdom! Thank you, Thay.
clear as mud.
Thank you Thay 💜
Ask a person who believes there is no self this: What evidence would you require to be convinced that there is a self? I guarantee they won't be able to answer, because they will accept no evidence because they've already made up their mind. Ask them this: If emotions, thoughts, intentions and consciousness doesn't convince you you are a self then what would convince you? Ask: Do I need to not have emotions, thoughts, intentions and consciousness in order to be a self? Do I need to be a brick to be a self or something? Only these kinds of questions have a chance of planting seeds and waking them up. Argumentation just will not work. You need to create doubt in them and get them to reason within themselves, True enlightenment is becoming more aware of of just how much of a self you are and just how amazing and transcendent consciousness is. It shows there truly is an ultimate mind behind the universe (namely God), who is also personal.
God is the doer.
They have no idea what they are even talking about please learn to think.
Utter nonsense ! 🙄
Hope for whom?
If I am not the self then who am I?
Pali Canon
Pure awareness that’s it
Science calls it consciousness 👍
You sound like an advaitest
You are Dependent Origination! (No inherent "I" in an ever changing flux of mind and body)
But then the awareness is the self 😂
@@feelsokayman3959 Small self is the ego. Self is the absolute, consciousness, void etc.
@@feelsokayman3959 Don't fall into the trap of replacing one identity with another