🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂 📙 You can find my new book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook

Thank you for another well thought out and informative video. The Atta is a figment of one's imagination - a delusion the mind creates to make what happens to us seem important. If I want good things to happen to ME and bad things not to happen to ME, it becomes a priority of mind and body to think and act in ways aimed at achieving those goals. It is useful as an organizational principal for the system. The side effect is that we spend all of our time worrying about a fictional character - the self. When the 5 hindrances are not clouding our minds and we reflect on the true nature of this Atta, we may see that it is indeed just a creation of mind - nothing which need be worried about at all. This is Anatta.

Bernadette Roberts, a Christian mystic who died in 2017 and had REMARKABLY similar experiences to Buddhism, explains that ecstasy (which would be what she calls jhana) is the temporary experience of lacking the reflexive attribute of consciousness (self). In ecstasy there no room for this reflexive attribute, thus there is no room for consciousness, thus there is no room for self. She also mentions that the problem with it is that it's temporary, so it's not the end of the journey. The journey only ends when the reflexive attribute of consciousness bending in on itself permanently ends.

I have no words for the brilliance (in terms of thoroughness) of this video, except of "thanks a lot"! 😁😊🙏🏻

I have been attracted to Buddhist teaching, primarily Dzochen,for decades. I consider myself as a philosophical or secular Buddhist. I always have had areas that I'm not grasping,other than as conceptual conundrums to play with. Anatta is one of those. When I grieve over the loss of a loved one,their selfhood is what I miss,and illusory or not,as they say in the south,when you get hit,you holler. I can only approach the subject as a matter of balancing self with oneness,and that negation of perception of self is not the goal. All faith traditions seem preoccupied with selflessness,but I've come to value the self, although it's not the solid,permanent entity I thought it was.

When my my mind releases and attains to jhana, the conceptual self is let go of, but I can't deny that there is this pure self that remains, which is pure radiant bliss, a completely non-contrived processles state, and then everything is known as that

Dependent on eyes and objects, eye consciousness arises. It is a natural process, just an experience, without any need of a Self. From the sight, a preference or liking arises. Based on the preference, the thought of relishing or rejecting it occurs. Because of this thought, i.e. - of I like it or I like it not, the I or Self is felt. The Self is fabricated and assumed to be real, substantial and permanent through this recurring process. Just look at the image in the mirror and the I or Self spontaneously sprung up. Pay attention to how it happened.

Very cool Doug, I am in awe of your ability to engage with academic philosophical works, even as an academic historian myself, it seems like an immensely challenging field

Using non self to LET Go. What happen in the past and the thinking of future is not "you" "yourself" "yours". Thej you can stay in the PRESENT MOMENT

Great video. Thank you!

Thanks for great and clear explanation of non-self.

Non self is not jhana experience. Non self is reality, it's seen through reality of conditionality

Amazing video! Very informative and very well explained. Thank you very much!

Excellent Presentation Sir !

Will you do more videos on criticisms of non-self? I really liked this one

Thank you for coming back to this topic. I am a bit worried when someone wants proof of the negative such as the nonexistence of something. Nonexistence should be the obvious assumption (or good luck with your income tax return for instance: you could be considered earning billions of dollars just for tax purposes - no proof required for that, unless you prove that you did NOT earn billions of dollars). The “non self” is a “non-claim” and does not require validation. If someone claims that there is such a thing as a “self”, then they must prove it. For instance, a computer has a "self" and I can prove it: it is in its hard disk. You can unplug it and install it on another machine and it will be “itself” again. It is not the processor, not the RAM not the graphic card nor the motherboard. It is the hard disk and it works every time even though the computer does not know about it. What about the human brain? Its activity produces the mind, that we feel like a “self”. It feels as real as the fact that the Earth is flat and the sun turns around the Earth. My limited understanding in neuroscience unfortunately tells me that there is no place in the brain that can be called the “self” zone. Every brain is wired differently and there is no single part that contains a specific memory. I assume therefore that a “self” does not really exist by itself even though I feel it. It is a powerful and useful illusion as our eyesight is. Democritus was also right about atoms but he could not prove them. The Buddha did not have brain surgery skills and brain scans to prove his idea. His insight was the best tool he had and he reached the right conclusion against the common belief of his time. I also believe that the Buddha denied the existence of a soul that reincarnates as a logical conclusion of recognizing that the self does not really exist even though we can feel it. Maybe later on, when the sangha had grown and monks tried so solace uneducated people around them, they realized that pestering them with disbelief did not turn out well. The past lives theory was probably a metaphor for the depth of the insight of the Buddha, that was taken literally by people that needed such wrong views to restore some hope in hard times. I assume that the Buddha tolerated this as a part of his ethical stance. I personally think that some people really do need these stories to feel better and cannot find hope unless they believe in some kind of supernatural survival. Anyway, this is just my opinion based on a reasoning and some fallible and maybe misunderstood science. I honestly do not think that the question about self or non-self should be addressed by looking into ancient texts today.

Thanks!

My understanding is that the non-self teaching is a skillful means to reduce our attachments (and possibly much it is closer to the truth than the doctrine of the self), and not to be taken as a mathematical truth. The Buddha refused to confirm or deny the self when questioned by Ananda. The objection of eliminativism is taking this teaching to be metaphysical doctrine. The Buddha does not deny the individual - just emphasizes it's impermanence. The doctrine of the self essentially makes the individual permanent (and therefore stuck in endless rounds of birth, death and suffering).

Thanks for another thought provoking video. I would change the analogy to you think you see a cathedral in the distance. As you walk toward it you realize it is just a rock formation with some trees around it. I suppose the skeptic can say you were just hallucinating that it was just a rock formation and trees. Here we have to leave the analogy behind. If what you saw is true even if you were hallucinating(like the experience was impersonal or impermanent) than I think you survive the objection. There are expectations for what a self is and they have to be identified and examined closely.

With all due respect, I believe that even if many aspects of the Self always change and are really a Non Self, there is a part of us called our character, which makes each one of us a specific different human being.

Anatta is the buddhas interpretation of theseus boat. The buddha adheres that none of them are, but all of them are.... atleast thats what i understood from the description of Rupa (form).

The concept of self seems to be very confusing. The fact that there is no permanent, unchanging self seems quite evident from experience. Our minds change over the course of our lives, and even our consciousness comes and goes. However, there is a very real sense of a self. That sense of self can be seen to be illusory in that it exists in one way (it comes and goes to differing degrees), but appears in another (it seems to omnipresent if not deeply investigated).

What I'm interested in is the possible parallel to these Jhanas and the actual experience of what TM people refer to transcendence or transcendental consciousness. It's the point where you even transcend time, identity of a self , body it's even something that even apparently feels like it happens after ecstatic Bliss there's no nothing there. It's like the mind doesn't even comprehend it until it starts to come back up into the field of thinking. So you can go back there as long as it's not a grasping. It's quite a shock at the point where it happens. One particular Buddhist bhiku refer to it as a sort of yo-yo Jhana. One Chan master suggest that that's a fourth Jhana. It's quite interesting and inspiring to hear about this Jhana explanation for many of us long time transcendental meditators. I'm just curious what your thoughts might be on this. Imagine it might be difficult to say if you've never practiced transcendental Meditation but I don't think it's any different than the anapansati. You know one you're just using your breath and following it to stillness the other is just a word, bija root mantra.

Indeed a good explanation. suppose, If we need to go for a long journey, and we can use few methods reach to the destination. for that we can use a vehicle or else we use a flight if you are rich enough ,instead of going by foot. amongst them Those who can have the flight, they can reach the destination quickly and more comfortably.Same thing Janas do to those who going through eight fold path to achieve the enlightenment

To experience non-self is more difficult than to understand it intellectually. That said going from theoretical knowledge to actual experience represents a giant leap which indicates true progress

Look at the world and witness it

I love that i have buddha nature and thus im here listening to you. Everyday adding to my machine so that i may help others add to theirs in the future. Thank you.

Superb 🔥🔥🔥🔥 sir

Thank you for this perspective and for giving it in the context of the suttas. I’m interested in the excerpt from the sutta you have cited as DN 2.83 but I don’t understand the citation. Aren’t suttas in the digha nikaya listed in whole numbers since there are no chapters? Can you tell me how to locate this particular text? Thanks!

Have you read "Should we come out of Jhåna to practice Vipassanå?" By Bhante Henepola Gunaratana? What are your thoughts on it?

Will your book appear in physical format? As I could not find it other than ebook. Many thanks.

It seems to me that what you suggest is cultivating enough samadhi, through jhana or other methods such as mindfulness of the breath, to be able to focus and reflect on one's experience in the present moment which reveals non-self. Jhana is a conditioned phenomena, like any other in the world, and is subject to arising and passing away.

I am having a similar conflict of knowing regarding rebirth in the sense of "rebirth after death into a new (samsaric) existence". How, if I believe I remember past lives, can I be certain that it's true and not makebelieve or fake memories? And so far I haven't found a satisfying answer to this. It raises all kinds of questions such as: are there claims in Buddhism that cannot be proven objectively or intersubjectively? And if yes, what does this mean for when I am inquiring whether the Dharma really is a reliable teaching?

Nice discussion on self, non-self and jhana. I would add 2 notions I picked up, the first coming from Daniel Ingram's book. He claims that Jhana can be on a scale from samatha (tranquility) to Vipassana (insight). And so the regular Jhana, of absorption, are mostly samatha Jhana. Whereas Vipassana Jhana produce insight. The latter also satisfies 7 factors of enlightenment, where the former satisfies 6. The second notion is that I think the true - self and non-self are closer than one might think. I believe that there is a fixed self, the stories we tell about ourselves, and that there is a flowing self, our direct experience of reality. I think that meditation can reduce the fixed self and therefore give room to the flowing self. Someone who believes in true self, points to this flowing self emerging. Someone who believes in non self, points to the fixed self disappearing. They both point to a different aspect of the same process: going from fixed to flowing self.

Self is permanent, unchanging esp in the Upanishads. Do rem the Vedic schools were not the only one that postulate a self. There were many non Vedic schools too. See DN 2

Can you make a physical copy of your book please? I'd really like to buy a copy.

Its actually not-self. The Buddha never said theres no self.

I wish I could have helped financially ... But I live far away from USA and is not from the developed world.

You never find the permanent self because you are it. The eyes see but cant see themselves. The Self knows, but cant know itself. That doesn’t mean there’s no self. The Buddha never said that there is “no self”. Even when asked directly in one of the suttas, he doesn’t give a definitive yes or know. But the Self (you) is in truth Absolute and Unconditioned. Limitless Awareness. But because the Self is Limitless, it (you) cant be defined. So then it appears that from limitlessness, from non definability we could sat there is no self, if we define self in terms of definability. I would say that there is neither Self nor no Self. I love the Buddha Dharma! But i think there are some confusion within the lay sangha about Buddhas teaching on annatta.

Non self it's seen by Vipassana

Could you comment on the argument that the translation should be " not- self" as opposed to " non- self"?

I have a question. I don’t quite understand, how the historical Buddha was able to see past lives, if there is no permanent self. I understand that everything changes, even the self, but something must have been the same to be able to be in past lives. Is it an impermanent kind of ever changing consciousness? If so, couldn’t that be called a kind of self, that continues from life to life? I’m confused. Thank you for your videos.

Why you don't have many subscribers?🙏🙏🙏

Can u tell me in 3 words that who am i summurizing all buddhas teachings? Pllzzzz❤️❤️❤️

I'm not sure what you mean by saying dhyana/jhana is not a method for experiencing no-self. My own experience(s) of no-self are very deep in dhyana of a sort, they require a conscious choice to let go that is unnerving (fear of not existing). They are not 'complete' in the sense that the knowledge of no-self isn't something I can sustain through the day because I just can't accomplish that much mindfulness. And to that extent, dhyana is a method (epistemology) for the experience of no-self but cannot be the only one. Maybe that's why there are 8 noble truths and not just one.

I think you fairly easily dismantled his argument. Clearly his knowledge of what the Buddha taught is limited. What I will say is though, is that although there is no permanent 'self' in respect of thoughts, emotions, feelings, desires, cognition etc. There is in fact a permanent state that is 'being'. Once we have attained the state of 'being' in this world (conception, birth), indeed the Universe, we cannot ever 'not be'. Though the body may die, and with it consciousness, the matter of our body goes on. This is a scientific fact. Matter cannot be destroyed, it can only ever be transformed. Therefore, even after death, we are still in a state of 'being'. So, although transformed from conscious (alive), to a state of death, we remain in a state of 'being'. In that respect, it could be argued, that there is in fact a permanent 'self'. Something to think about, Doug :)

First, thank you for these very useful videos. There have recently been some good conversations about western colonization of Buddhism, warping it to become something that some would no longer consider to still be Buddhism. This video (which I am not endorsing, just pointing out) is one example. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aZ6BZNR8zp2Rd30.html . I'd really be interested on your take on this. BTW I have purchased your new book and so far find it wonderful.

I don't know who this Repetti is, or why anyone would care what he says about Buddhism, but he clearly has no idea what he's talking about. It's not that we don't see the so-called "self" and therefore think there isn't one, but that what we ordinarily think of as the "self" doesn't actually exist even when we supposedly are looking at it. We understand anatta through investigation, not, to my knowledge, through jhana. Jhana is subsumed under samadhi, leading (we hope) to panna (wisdom), through which we come to understand, in the deepest sense, anatta. So at best Repetti is engaging in some kind of straw man argument of his own design, one which has nothing to do with Buddhist teachings. After watching the entire video (I probably should get in the habit of doing that before commenting) I see that what you explain is 100 percent in line with my own understanding, which is gratifying to know. Thanks for the clear discussion and refutation of Repetti. I hope he sees this video and comes to a more correct understanding of the topic.

Truth cannot be put into words. Please excuse this poor effort. Non self is anything that one can experience. Self, if one can call it that, can be found, (But not experienced) before. Before what? Before anything that the mind can conceive of, or experience.

a critique required minimal knowledge and rick has none