Thanks for sharing the first fetter series. All talks are wonderful. My questions is how can we be sure if and when we have broken the first fetter? Any specific clues or experience that confirms the breaking of the first fetter? How do we know if we have successfully broken the first fetter?
Thanks so much for doing this. I’ve been working this fetter since 2016 and I feel like I’ve gleaned insights specifically from following your direction over the last year or so. But I can’t help but think this is taking me way too long. Perhaps I’m done and just don’t recognize it. Maybe I’m beating a dead horse. I get that there’s no inherent self to realize that there’s no inherent self. But it still “feels” like there is, especially when I think about it, or when I’m feeling self conscious about something. How do you know when it’s tome to move on to the 4th and 5th fetters.
It s possible that s because tactile sensation in the solar plexys / heart / head, feels heavy and contracted giving the sensation of being "here". Do you meditate regurarly?
Thanks for your question. What do you believe is the issue. See the later videos in this series. What do you expect to happen? What is this 'me' that has or hasn't achieved a state? You can only move on to fetters four and five when the first three are broken. Is it completely clear that there is and never was any form of unchanging, solid, independent self?
Thank you so much for these. I was wondering, how can "I" know that I broke some fetter and can move to the next one? Just conviction based on experiments?
Hi Chris, I had a question regarding the overall process of realizing no inherent self (this method). Does this process happen through several mini-realizations, beliefs one by one being broken through investigating actual experience? I think I have seen that seeing doesn't happen with a see-er, is this a permanent/definitive shift? I am still struggling with some of the other senses, and I worry that some beliefs may come back? And another question: are all the investigations necessary for eventually seeing through the self-concept as a whole? Or do they assist in seeing it? Thank you.
I'd say a few words about this from my own experience and add something that may explain it better in the end. When I got into this non-duality thing I was very open to question my beliefs. In a short while, it was cleared to me that my perception was changing and I was learning a lot of which was already under my nose, although I never got to see it that way before. It was something like these explanations in the video series. Then, a huge glimpse happened (after a period of meditations) and it changed my whole perception of who I was, because I saw through the illusion of "I". Once that happened all the books I've read and all the teachers I've listened to made sense in retrospect. It seemed like the suffering ended but after a while my attention was scattered again towards different things and the ego took over. Now I'm again gradually directing my awareness to the same place and having important insights while the need for control is losing it's power slowly. Our entire life is conditioning us to believe to be the characters in the story of life because we were raised that way. The ego tries to survive and grab our attention but if we are interested enough in knowing our true nature, we will eventually know it and feel it. Everybody has their own journey and it's up to you to find what suits you best. Personally, the self inquiry of Ramana Maharshi turned out to be the thing for me. This is the best explanation I found in years so I hope it helps you to get a better picture of what I'm saying. th-cam.com/video/f-pbW-kH_1A/w-d-xo.html
Is realizing no-self enough to be a non-returner (no future births ever)? We can awaken to different aspects of Reality and to different depths - not a lot of Ramanas walking around.
Thanks for your question. I don't usually reference things in terms of rebirth as I find the principle unhelpful. Instead, I try to reference things in more simple terms. Realising 'No-self' (breaking the first fetter) is the realisation that there is, and never was, any solid, independent, unchanging self. This also breaks the second fetter (as it is realised that all along, the teachings about the self (and everything else) being empty was true, and the third fetter, since no rituals could ever be for the benefit or improvement of a permanent, independent, unchanging self (since there isn't one). However, a person is still left with 'subtler' references to a self which are dealt with in the subsequent fetters. Fetters 4 and 5 in particular reference the subtle belief in a self that experiences mental suffering caused (apparently) by external experiences and other people/objects. For a complete 'realisation', one would need to break all ten of the fetters. I wish you well ♥
@@buddhistsympathizer1136 Thanks for your answer and the very clear videos. I looked at wiki/Fetter_(Buddhism) and it's a relief -- apart from doubt and ignorance anyway! I had one temporary "no self/all world" awakening in 3+ decades where I saw everything as alive/perfect/God and what self there was was quietly alert, profoundly grateful, and amused that it was so easy and effortless. It was shallow as far as insights into the nature of reality go, but maybe I was too quick to dismiss it. Is it enough to drop the self, live in alert unknowing, and have faith that further realizations, if they're going to come, will come by themselves? The "no self/all world" approach just seems the opposite of the "only self(or Self)/world is maya" teachings of Ramana and Nisargadatta. THANKS! :)
@@k.l.spencer5635 "I had one temporary "no self/all world" awakening in 3+ decades where I saw everything as alive/perfect/God" I understand. What you refer to would be some-what of a permanent state upon reaching the tenth fetter . . . although we need to be careful about referencing an 'I' that attains anything, and understand what we are referring to is empty. "Is it enough to drop the self, live in alert unknowing, and have faith that further realizations, if they're going to come, will come by themselves?" Your question could imply that there is a permanent, independent self that could or needs to 'drop' something. It's perfectly possible (although rare) to break all ten fetters permanently in one realisation (Ramana?), but for most of us breaking each fetters will take time with self-inquiry and/or meditating on the items in question. The 'only Self / all is one' viewpoint is a perfectly acceptable viewpoint providing (in Buddhism) it is not clung to and held as a new belief . . . i.e. that it is not empty.
@@buddhistsympathizer1136 I thought I'd have insights into who I am (what awareness is), the origin of awareness, the Reality behind it (Parabrahman), and know that what-is is a Mind projection. I guess those are all beliefs and concepts of the fictional self so I think I'll just seemingly choose to be quiet and mindful. Thanks again for the great videos.
@@k.l.spencer5635 In Buddhism, we don't cling to 'I am awareness', although we don't say it is wrong . . . we can still talk about it. In Buddhism, all things are 'empty' and that includes awareness. But if we talk about it for a moment . . . If 'I am awareness', then what further is needed? You already 'that'. All that may be needed (perhaps we can say) is to remove the barriers created that are preventing you from realising 'that'. That is what 'breaking the fetters' are/is. The self is entirely conceptual, yes, but that does not mean that we cannot think or talk about such a thing - Or to talk about someone doing something to achieve a realisation. Suggesting 'well I'm not real, so I guess I can't do anything' is nihilism / spiritual bypassing (something I talk against a lot).
I (as a concept) don’t have an idea of how to incorporate the idea of no self or no free will in life. You say that regardless, this is valuable, but this assumes there is something of value to some”one”? It just seems that everything sort of falls apart. The illusion is seen through but I (as a concept) act normally as if the concept were true? I don’t know why, but it just seems somewhat contradictory. How does this fit into thing likes gratitude and love? How can there be gratitude towards some”one” if the one only exists as an empty construct? Not only that, but when there is no inherent person who had the choice to do otherwise but an unfolding experience of a conceptual self doing things for others? You briefly explained how it shouldn’t lead to nihilism but from both views of “there is no self” and “there is no inherent self”, it seems equally nihilistic. I appreciate the videos!
Hi - Thanks for your question. Did you go through the entire process? What were your findings? "I (as a concept) don’t have an idea of how to incorporate the idea of no self or no free will in life" What are you referring to . . . the 'thing' that has life that could have an idea incorporated into it? Is that an inherent self living life? Or is there just 'life'? .... "You say that regardless, this is valuable, but this assumes there is something of value to some”one”? Only in a conventional sense. I do not need to dismiss it's utility, because doing so would be nihilism. The self is conceptual. Realisations are conceptual. Value is conceptual. All these things are empty. .... "How does this fit into thing likes gratitude and love? How can there be gratitude towards some”one” If the one only exists as an empty construct?" If you specifically mean 'empty' as in the Buddhist term, then all things are empty. In this examination we look into only one thing 'the self' and find it is empty. What you can then do is look into gratitude and love . . . and indeed 'someone' (as in other people) and find the same thing. They are also empty. ... ' There is no self' can be used as shorthand for 'There is no inherent self'. Certainly 'There is no self AT ALL' would be nihilism, since it dismisses the self as existing conceptually.
"I (as a concept) don’t have an idea of how to incorporate the idea of no self or no free will in life" ... Perhaps my explanation was over-complex. Here is a much simpler analogy which you might find useful. ... Santa Claus thinks he is a real, solid, permanent being. One day he discovers that all along he was just a myth, a concept, an idea in people's minds . . . Santa then thinks, 'How can I incorporate the idea of being an imaginary character into my life?' ... Can you see, it doesn't work like that? That is what you are implying with the question. Once you realise there is no inherent self, that's it! If it is still unclear, look for the inherent self that your question relates to - None will be found. ... Now, I could answer the question in a conventional sense to you . . . "ok, I've realised this . . . what next?" Answer - Live your life. Have fun. Relax. Be aware that there are many more things to examine other than 'the self' . . . it is just one of many. If mental suffering still troubles you, then you can examine this in fetters 4 and 5 (after realising 'no self', there is some work still left to do to examine suffering'
Thank you ❤
Clarity and simplicity. 🤯🙏 The straw that broke the camel's back. 😶
Thank you for your comment - I wish you well ♥
It all makes sense. Thank you so much!
Great video series in terms of succint and unvague explanation
Thank you
Thanks for sharing the first fetter series. All talks are wonderful. My questions is how can we be sure if and when we have broken the first fetter? Any specific clues or experience that confirms the breaking of the first fetter? How do we know if we have successfully broken the first fetter?
Thanks so much for doing this. I’ve been working this fetter since 2016 and I feel like I’ve gleaned insights specifically from following your direction over the last year or so. But I can’t help but think this is taking me way too long. Perhaps I’m done and just don’t recognize it. Maybe I’m beating a dead horse. I get that there’s no inherent self to realize that there’s no inherent self. But it still “feels” like there is, especially when I think about it, or when I’m feeling self conscious about something. How do you know when it’s tome to move on to the 4th and 5th fetters.
It s possible that s because tactile sensation in the solar plexys / heart / head, feels heavy and contracted giving the sensation of being "here". Do you meditate regurarly?
Thanks for your question. What do you believe is the issue.
See the later videos in this series.
What do you expect to happen?
What is this 'me' that has or hasn't achieved a state?
You can only move on to fetters four and five when the first three are broken.
Is it completely clear that there is and never was any form of unchanging, solid, independent self?
Thank you so much for these.
I was wondering, how can "I" know that I broke some fetter and can move to the next one? Just conviction based on experiments?
Great work ♥️🌹🙏
Thank you
"I" have broken the fetter!
Well done! I wish you all the best
Hi Chris,
I had a question regarding the overall process of realizing no inherent self (this method). Does this process happen through several mini-realizations, beliefs one by one being broken through investigating actual experience? I think I have seen that seeing doesn't happen with a see-er, is this a permanent/definitive shift? I am still struggling with some of the other senses, and I worry that some beliefs may come back?
And another question: are all the investigations necessary for eventually seeing through the self-concept as a whole? Or do they assist in seeing it?
Thank you.
I'd say a few words about this from my own experience and add something that may explain it better in the end.
When I got into this non-duality thing I was very open to question my beliefs. In a short while, it was cleared to me that my perception was changing and I was learning a lot of which was already under my nose, although I never got to see it that way before. It was something like these explanations in the video series. Then, a huge glimpse happened (after a period of meditations) and it changed my whole perception of who I was, because I saw through the illusion of "I". Once that happened all the books I've read and all the teachers I've listened to made sense in retrospect. It seemed like the suffering ended but after a while my attention was scattered again towards different things and the ego took over. Now I'm again gradually directing my awareness to the same place and having important insights while the need for control is losing it's power slowly. Our entire life is conditioning us to believe to be the characters in the story of life because we were raised that way. The ego tries to survive and grab our attention but if we are interested enough in knowing our true nature, we will eventually know it and feel it. Everybody has their own journey and it's up to you to find what suits you best. Personally, the self inquiry of Ramana Maharshi turned out to be the thing for me.
This is the best explanation I found in years so I hope it helps you to get a better picture of what I'm saying.
th-cam.com/video/f-pbW-kH_1A/w-d-xo.html
Is realizing no-self enough to be a non-returner (no future births ever)? We can awaken to different aspects of Reality and to different depths - not a lot of Ramanas walking around.
Thanks for your question. I don't usually reference things in terms of rebirth as I find the principle unhelpful. Instead, I try to reference things in more simple terms.
Realising 'No-self' (breaking the first fetter) is the realisation that there is, and never was, any solid, independent, unchanging self.
This also breaks the second fetter (as it is realised that all along, the teachings about the self (and everything else) being empty was true, and the third fetter, since no rituals could ever be for the benefit or improvement of a permanent, independent, unchanging self (since there isn't one).
However, a person is still left with 'subtler' references to a self which are dealt with in the subsequent fetters. Fetters 4 and 5 in particular reference the subtle belief in a self that experiences mental suffering caused (apparently) by external experiences and other people/objects.
For a complete 'realisation', one would need to break all ten of the fetters.
I wish you well ♥
@@buddhistsympathizer1136 Thanks for your answer and the very clear videos. I looked at wiki/Fetter_(Buddhism) and it's a relief -- apart from doubt and ignorance anyway! I had one temporary "no self/all world" awakening in 3+ decades where I saw everything as alive/perfect/God and what self there was was quietly alert, profoundly grateful, and amused that it was so easy and effortless. It was shallow as far as insights into the nature of reality go, but maybe I was too quick to dismiss it. Is it enough to drop the self, live in alert unknowing, and have faith that further realizations, if they're going to come, will come by themselves? The "no self/all world" approach just seems the opposite of the "only self(or Self)/world is maya" teachings of Ramana and Nisargadatta. THANKS! :)
@@k.l.spencer5635 "I had one temporary "no self/all world" awakening in 3+ decades where I saw everything as alive/perfect/God"
I understand. What you refer to would be some-what of a permanent state upon reaching the tenth fetter . . . although we need to be careful about referencing an 'I' that attains anything, and understand what we are referring to is empty.
"Is it enough to drop the self, live in alert unknowing, and have faith that further realizations, if they're going to come, will come by themselves?"
Your question could imply that there is a permanent, independent self that could or needs to 'drop' something.
It's perfectly possible (although rare) to break all ten fetters permanently in one realisation (Ramana?), but for most of us breaking each fetters will take time with self-inquiry and/or meditating on the items in question.
The 'only Self / all is one' viewpoint is a perfectly acceptable viewpoint providing (in Buddhism) it is not clung to and held as a new belief . . . i.e. that it is not empty.
@@buddhistsympathizer1136 I thought I'd have insights into who I am (what awareness is), the origin of awareness, the Reality behind it (Parabrahman), and know that what-is is a Mind projection. I guess those are all beliefs and concepts of the fictional self so I think I'll just seemingly choose to be quiet and mindful. Thanks again for the great videos.
@@k.l.spencer5635 In Buddhism, we don't cling to 'I am awareness', although we don't say it is wrong . . . we can still talk about it.
In Buddhism, all things are 'empty' and that includes awareness.
But if we talk about it for a moment . . .
If 'I am awareness', then what further is needed? You already 'that'. All that may be needed (perhaps we can say) is to remove the barriers created that are preventing you from realising 'that'. That is what 'breaking the fetters' are/is.
The self is entirely conceptual, yes, but that does not mean that we cannot think or talk about such a thing - Or to talk about someone doing something to achieve a realisation.
Suggesting 'well I'm not real, so I guess I can't do anything' is nihilism / spiritual bypassing (something I talk against a lot).
I (as a concept) don’t have an idea of how to incorporate the idea of no self or no free will in life. You say that regardless, this is valuable, but this assumes there is something of value to some”one”? It just seems that everything sort of falls apart. The illusion is seen through but I (as a concept) act normally as if the concept were true? I don’t know why, but it just seems somewhat contradictory. How does this fit into thing likes gratitude and love? How can there be gratitude towards some”one” if the one only exists as an empty construct? Not only that, but when there is no inherent person who had the choice to do otherwise but an unfolding experience of a conceptual self doing things for others? You briefly explained how it shouldn’t lead to nihilism but from both views of “there is no self” and “there is no inherent self”, it seems equally nihilistic.
I appreciate the videos!
Hi - Thanks for your question.
Did you go through the entire process? What were your findings?
"I (as a concept) don’t have an idea of how to incorporate the idea of no self or no free will in life"
What are you referring to . . . the 'thing' that has life that could have an idea incorporated into it?
Is that an inherent self living life? Or is there just 'life'?
....
"You say that regardless, this is valuable, but this assumes there is something of value to some”one”?
Only in a conventional sense. I do not need to dismiss it's utility, because doing so would be nihilism.
The self is conceptual. Realisations are conceptual. Value is conceptual. All these things are empty.
....
"How does this fit into thing likes gratitude and love? How can there be gratitude towards some”one” If the one only exists as an empty construct?"
If you specifically mean 'empty' as in the Buddhist term, then all things are empty. In this examination we look into only one thing 'the self' and find it is empty.
What you can then do is look into gratitude and love . . . and indeed 'someone' (as in other people) and find the same thing. They are also empty.
...
' There is no self' can be used as shorthand for 'There is no inherent self'. Certainly 'There is no self AT ALL' would be nihilism, since it dismisses the self as existing conceptually.
"I (as a concept) don’t have an idea of how to incorporate the idea of no self or no free will in life"
...
Perhaps my explanation was over-complex. Here is a much simpler analogy which you might find useful.
...
Santa Claus thinks he is a real, solid, permanent being. One day he discovers that all along he was just a myth, a concept, an idea in people's minds . . . Santa then thinks, 'How can I incorporate the idea of being an imaginary character into my life?'
...
Can you see, it doesn't work like that?
That is what you are implying with the question.
Once you realise there is no inherent self, that's it!
If it is still unclear, look for the inherent self that your question relates to - None will be found.
...
Now, I could answer the question in a conventional sense to you . . . "ok, I've realised this . . . what next?"
Answer - Live your life. Have fun. Relax.
Be aware that there are many more things to examine other than 'the self' . . . it is just one of many.
If mental suffering still troubles you, then you can examine this in fetters 4 and 5 (after realising 'no self', there is some work still left to do to examine suffering'