✅ Check out this playlist next on self and non self in Buddhism -- kzfaq.info/sun/PL0akoU_OszRjA9n0-U24ZCpfEQVFxeGz2 🧡 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 🙂

The Buddha implied, that there is no _permanent_ , _unchanging_ self. In philosophy terms, there is no entity, there is only process. This is the fundamental difference between the Buddha's teaching and other Indian religions.

I was discussing this recently with my partner. It’s a tough concept for me to grasp as a new practicing Buddhist, so thanks for bringing clarification.

Wow...this is one of the most helpful and beneficial videos on a very important and controversial topic in buddhism that I have ever seen. And I have surely watched hundreds, if not thousands of videos with buddhism content. Thanks a lot for making this topic much clearer or more understandable for me.

That's an excellent thumbnail. I tried to wrap my head around the conventional interpretation of "non-self," but realized the self is more of a dotted outline than a bold one, or just nothing at all. If there isn't a self, then how can you be mindful of an in-breath or an out-breath then since they are selfless, and essentially do not exist? Great video.

Absolutely agree with you, Mr. Doug. I'm not a native english speaker, but I think the best translation for anatta is "not self". Some sources translate anatta as "non self" as if there should be a mysterious substance beyond "self".

This is the clearest and most helpful explanation of anatta I’ve come across. Thank you. Your videos have helped me immensely.

I love the citations when you briefly mention a sutta. Far too often people don't do this. Thank you for incorporating it into your videos!

These first two minutes blew my mind. Never thought about it that way. Great video.

There is so much packed into this video! I had to watch it twice. I think I need to watch it again. Thank you for discussing this topic!

Extremely helpful. Thank you.

Thank you so much for enlightening us!❤️

I’m grateful for your skillful work, Doug. I found a kind of refuge and relief through Buddhist teachings and practice.

Your explanations are getting better all the time. Congratulations!

there's one word that will uncomplicate every discussion about "self": *temperament* _In psychology, temperament broadly refers to consistent individual differences in behavior that are biologically based and are relatively independent of learning, system of values and attitudes._

Thanks for this Doug, it’s really helped me understand. My considered view is that there is no transcendent self only the physical processes of the body defined by the interface between the organism and its environment. This is freeing in itself but also very interesting as I meditate and seek to deny the labels I apply to the physical part of me, it’s interface to the non-self environment and that external environment. I’ve been able to, in some small way, perceive things differently. The most impactful when the grass I was meditating on briefly became not-grass maybe I will be able to apply this to myself before I die? That would be very moving.

This is so clear and so profound. I have never heard it explained so well.

A most enlightening video. Thank you Doug. Sadhu sadhu sadhu🙏🙏🙏

Amazing presentation Doug, 10:55 - 11:06 mins said it all.

I think that's the clearest video on the subject I I've seen. If I think of me a year ago it would have been great to see that one. Would it be worth tagging some of your videos as key foundational or something. Is that possible. It wouldn't necessarily have to be permatised

I pass a cherry tree in full blossom and the sight fills my heart: oh, how beautiful. I keep walking and I leave the tree behind... No clinging appeared, no craving, no Dukkha in relation to the tree - this tree is not mine, it is not me, it is Not (my) Self. ~ I buy a cherry orchard, above mentioned tree included. When I pass by this tree in full bloom the sight still fills my heart: oh how beautiful my tree is! But at the same time I worry: what if it doesn't get enough water? What if it gets too much water? What if caterpillars eat the leaves? What if thieves steal my cherries and break the branches in the process? Oh I must protect my tree. I must prune it. I must pick the cherries... And on and on my worries and thinking and planning and concocting goes. It is one and the same tree, but in the first example no Self was born, the tree hadn't become me, mine. And in the second example the tree became me, mine; it became Dukkha. ~~ It is in this way that through clinging and craving we accumulate Self - Dukkha: a car becomes my car - me; other people's ideas become my ideas - me; the books I've read become me, mine; my wife; my children; my body; my cherry trees.... In none of those things, people, ideas, can I find me, they are all empty of me. Yet, through the clinging to them, through craving the pleasing properties I wrongly attribute to them, they all become me, mine; they are my Dukkha. And when this body & mind inevitably cease one day, what will happen to all these things that make "me"? Will the car disappear? Will the cherry tree stop blossoming? Will the books I've appropriated disappear from the world? If all that which makes "me" doesn't die with my body & mind, then do I really die? Has it ever actually, really, truly been "me"? I sure wasn't born with any of it, and I sure cannot take any of it anywhere beyond this lifetime. Can I not renounce all the claims I hold on the trees, books, ideas, people in my life and still remain "me", but now free of all attachments? ~~~ So, this is what is meant by Not Self: the only reason why I believe that all those not-me, not-mine things are in fact me, mine, is my ignorance. Which leads to clinging. The only thing that truly is "me, mine" is the ignorance. When I overcome ignorance then what is left? When all that is Not Me, that is Not (my) Self is let go of, when all the Dukkha is thus let go of, then what is left is the only "true me": Nibbana.

Thank you!

Hi Doug, I love your channel and I'm really grateful for all the work and study you put into it. About 'existing' in the way the Buddha believed we do as outlined in this video: Is there any philosophical argument present in Buddhist texts that attempts to prove that we and others do exist? Descartes said 'I think therefore I am' and other Western philosophers subsequently pointed out the ways in which this argument was flawed (and others pointed to solipsism or 'the problem of other minds'). Does any Buddhist teacher actually attempt to prove that we actually 'exist' as Descartes tried to, or is it just taken as a given? I imagine this would be a very, very difficult (or impossible) thing to prove. Thank you!

I recall reading somewhere - I don't recall where, but perhaps someone else will know the anecdote - that when a Zen roshi was told about Heraclitus' famous declaration, he (the Zen master) said that you can't even step in the same river once. That, I think, adds an additional layer of profundity onto the idea, one of anatta, one of what in that tradition might be called emptiness. I think it's great and helpful in clarifying the concept that you point out that the doctrine of anatta applies not only to what we typically think of as "ourselves" internally, but in fact to everything in the universe(s). All conditioned phenomena are empty of self - as well as impermanent and unsatisfactory - therefore, why attach to or identify with any of it? I'm enjoying these videos and the clarity of presentation, thanks.

I like this video a lot I often argued that the only thing that makes people deferent is just our memories and experiences

Dear Doug, in one of your videos you had talked about "good books about budhism", and thanks to that I bought "in the buddhas words" by bhikkhu bodhi. And since I really loved it and learned more than expected, now I want to buy another of his books, but I dont know anything about the difference beetwem them. The ones that right now are available in the website are these: -The connected discourses of the buddha - The numérical discourses of the budha. -the suttanipata Could you please tell me a little bit about them, and which one you think should I buy next? Ps. Im sorry for my broken english and for talking about a subject that doesn't have anything to do with the current video.

Thank you for this very clear explanation of the "anatta" doctrine, Doug! I just noticed that you emphasize the lack of permanence of self. I think it's worth mentioning this quote from the Buddha: "All conditioned things are impermanent, all conditioned things are suffering, all dhammas are without self." The implication here seems to be that ALL things (or whatever "dhammas" here signify) are anatta, even those things that may not necessarily be impermanent or a cause of suffering. :) I think a lot of people are baffled by the anatta teaching because they equate non-self with absolute non-existence. If I understand it, one of the meaning sf the Middle Way is taking a rather neutral stance about self: to acknowledge that there is that which arises and perishes due to the coming together of causes, nothing more. It doesn't deny that anything happens (such as consciousness), only that things arise in dependence upon one another, so there is no inherently existing self.

If one were to sit still in a room, becoming completely present, maybe even just watching the breath - where is the "self" then?

I like the way Thich Nhat Hanh describes non self as interbeing. Nothing is an independent self that stands alone without anything else.

Thank you very much for this video. Once again it really helped me understanding buddhist teachings better.

Been studying Buddhism philosophy for his viewpoint on self done with all scriptures but didn't find a better explanation than this. This video should have came earlier

Buddha’s discovery of the non-self concept is in some sense akin to Einstein’s discovery of the theory of relativity. Because, both these findings are marvelous realities that were brought to light purely by thinking outside the box using common human cognition. This was the Buddha’s core discovery which he included in his very first presentation to the five ascetics by Annattalakkhana Sutta. The other core teaching is the path to cease suffering. This is mainly pertinent to mental stream of suffering and not for the physical stream of suffering as the Buddha himself was subject to decay, sickness, etc., The source of suffering is the mind. Nobody can cause you suffering. Suffering is due to letting the mind to create stressful thoughts that are explained in book loads. Meditation can help you to be the master of the thought generation process instead of being the slave to the automatic thought process that we developed in our brains for this purpose. We condition our thought generation programs from day one, that we have developed, improved and have it in the brain to cater for day to day affairs. We (our mind) is not an entity (noun) but a verb. We exist when the programs we developed are in execute (running) mode. When we are in deep sleep or in unconscious state we (self) does not exist. Self is a delusion as we feel it only when our thinking programs are in running mode. It’s active in dream state too, but not when we are in deep sleep. Understanding anatta in real sense helps the task of cessation unhappiness and not letting the brain to fool the absolute reality. If the Buddha was emphasized on preaching only the anatta concept there wouldn’t be a Buddhism today as it is not what people want to hear. Heaven, hell, good, bad, gods, wonder, etc., are what people are attracted to. The Buddha knew it very well.

🙏

I’m reading Jay Garfield’s book ‘Losing ourselves.’ He makes a distinction between the concept of 1) the self (an unchanging soul, atman, etc.), which he argues does not exist; when we think we have selves, we are experiencing a cognitive illusion. And 2) persons, which he argues do exist in the form of socially constructed identities that do change over time. I am wrong in thinking when you talk about the self as permanent, this matches Garfield’s use of the phrase ‘the self’. And when you talk about the self as impermanent, this matches Garfield’s use of the phrase ‘persons’? Garfield, so far as I’ve read, refers to Chandrakirti and Hume a lot. I am also having a dispute with my partner.

I love your shirt!

The Buddha taught that, as written in the Dhammapada, the Dharma--Truth--is "free of self". Which I take to mean that a search for Truth must take ego out of the equation. How you FEEL about the Truth has no effect on its reality. In that sense, Self just gets in the way. That is one of my favorite verses in the Dhammapada.

Thanks Dough. In 10 fetters, there is "Mana" or often translate as "conceit". Do u think is this equal to "Self" ? 🙏

❤🙏🏻

Buddhism is a teaching of wisdom as only wisdom can resolve our problems and fulfill our wishes .... Practicing Buddhism means correcting our erroneous thoughts and actions in our daily lives.

The way I take this is that, there is no part of our own identity as we perceive it which is really who we are. For example if we think we are British, or funny, or generous, these are all concept's of ourselves which are false and impermanent. It's basically the way I understand ego, because it exactly these things which people use to create an ego, that end up causing problems.

there is no point to anything, we don't do evil things once self realized not because there is a self, but because the illusion of the false self has been seen through in our direct experience. it is the constructs making up the false self, the ego that generates the thoughts and desires to do evil things in the first place.

So we are a self but only a temporary self and that self is more a self of convenience because it already has a name and a backstory and lives among so many others that think of themselves as selves and accept you as a self but we just shouldn't think of ourselves as having any inherent value as death shows all selves that they are just an amalgamation of cells and neurons who are operating under the convenient and preexisting idea of self? But this force in the universe refreshes the perspective of this experience of self into different universal perspectives based on your past actions until you get it right by acting with selfless universal compassion and so very right that you don't have to experience the ups and downs of self ever again and can move on to Nirvana? Is that somewhere in the ballpark?

Is it correct to say that Buddha rejected the speculation on grand metaphysical questions pertaining to self and its place in the universe by doctrine of anatta?

Thank you Dough. In your opinion, what is the things that go for "rebirth", is it consciousness? or Gandhabba? Thank you

I thought that what the Buddha meant is that there was no irreducible "self" but rather that what we typically identify as "self" is the result of the 5 aggregates? Maybe those are the streams you referred to in the video? When conditions exist where those 5 aggregates can arise, we "exist", and when conditions change, our "self" does not exist for some time. Given an infinite timeline, this is how I reconcile rebirth and secularism because we have infinite time for the proper conditions to arise over and over again until our aggregates are refined enough to escape the cycle of rebirth.

What the Buddha taught was that the five skandhas are not self. First one has to thoroughly understand what is meant by these skandhas, Next one has to observe with heightened awareness the functioning of these skandhas, both separately and as a group (no easy task). Then one has to consider to what extent these skandhas constitute "myself". Apart from the context of this major meditative exercise, I fail to see any profit in discussing whether or not there is a "self".

My understanding is that when Buddha talks of self he is referring to the stage of becoming in the links of dependent origination. It is the illusion of self brought on by craving that ultimately leads to dukkah and therefore non self is all that there is when this becoming ceases to arise. I think the reason we can’t talk about it rationally is because the self brought on by ignorance is so incompatible with the liberated self that we can’t share an ontological framework with which to discuss it

so in other words there is no intrensic self . seems like buddha knew about fragmentation begfore psycology was created haha buddha really was the first psycologist. its like with emptyness , people think emptyness means that there is no-thing when buddha really meant that things empty of intrensic meaning . same for the self , whoever translated the pali canon and other of buddhas words didnt do a great job haha . ( same with the word suffering i mean who thought that was a good translation haha). GREAT VIDEO doug as usuall you clarify topics in such a calming way , thank you (ps youre the only valid teacher of the dharma that i found on youtube and that i trust ) love from ireland

Sadhu sadhu Thank you!

The way I understand it (I think). It isn't that there is no self, rather our understanding of it is incorrect. I guess that's why its better to point to non self - as meaning something other than our current incorrect understanding. As stated in the video No self leaves a big black hole in which we get lost and confused. I suppose a rainbow comes together when certain variables are in place. Its not that the rainbow is non existent. In fact it would be justified in saying "I am a rainbow at that moment" But the conditions for its existence are ever changing.

Yes, All things we have r just a loan while we r still alive.

I believe the NO SELF implies that there are no fixed body that we can demand it to do what we (MIND) want. SELF, in Buddhism, is something that is fixed and cannot be altered, modified, or changed. It is the reason why Buddhism focuses on the IMPERMANENCE. One of the teachings I often hear from the Thai monks when referring to Anatta is: If this body is my SELF and it is mine, I should be able to tell it to do as I please - such as: stop growing (Anicam), don't be sick (Dukkam), don't die (Anatta). Also, the teaching of Anicam, Dukkam, Anatta are commonly taught together. Anicam=Impermanence, Dukkham=Discomfort, Anatta=No Self

Neither Self nor Non-Self! It's inexpressible or inconceivable! It's neither here nor there; Neither inside nor outside! It's within One's body & mind! Yet it's everywhere and nowhere!

So ok, the body isn't a self as it changes. The mind can't be myself as its always changing and adapting and I can't fully control. But isn't the self then my awareness? As that's ways been there since my birth? And is the one who notices my thoughts? Or am I missing the point?

In Hinduism and Advaita Vedanta, they talk about realizing the Self; however, it is my understanding that even within that tradition, thinking that the Self is a permanent, unchanging object is a misconception (that is kinda widespread to be honest). So I think Buddhism and Hinduism are actually pointing to the same thing.

I like the way Joseph Goldstein put it “The self is real its just not really real.”

There is no self, and there is no noself. It always boils down to the concept of existence.

Perhaps the concept of the nonexistent self is to emphasize that we are made of or consist of non-self elements. It is a practice of humility leading to empathy and an understanding of interdependence.

If there was no 'self' one could not fight ones defilements or kilesas. Where is this self, in purity of the heart. How does one reach such purity? Through sati and deep Samadhi; according to Ajahn Martin, disciple of Ajahn Maha Bua (Thai Forest tradition of Ajahn Mun). But we in the west tend to not learn this version of the dhamma, instead we tend to be educated via more Mahayana or Tibetan forms of Sunyata (emptiness).

Impressed and pleased to learn you have a PhD!

Is identity and self the same in Buddhism?

There is no self - nihilist view meaning there is no continuation of life or rebirth after death. The Buddha denied this position because as long as craving and ignorance persists, there will be renewed becoming and rebirth. Anatta - literally no/ not self which means there is no permanemt or stable basis for what can be considered as a self. What we take as a self is a false idea on the five aggregates that is always changing and influx hence the idea of self is insubstantial and holding on to it is suffering. What the Buddha rejected is the false idea of a self not denying that you exist! You exist but in reality there is no substantial self in this body and mind identified as a self Instead of declaring there is no self which is to support the nihilist position, he taught the perspective not I not mine and not my self to overcome the idea of self. Who practices? You take on the more skillful identity of a dhamma practictioner to practice the eighhtfold path to gradually see things as they really are then you are liberated. That is why the cessation of the five aggregates is in the aggregates itself (Rahula 1958) You have no choice but to practice (truth of Anatta) You can be liberated because of Anatta

If there is no self, why worry about karma and rebirth?

What if what we really are is more? And what we identify as self is just a random storyline in this universe with all the beliefs and experience collected in a lifetime? Our goal can be to free us from this and be what we really should be. Just random thoughts.

the buddha didn't teach anything new he was just rehashing the concept of vedantic self-consciousness, which means to turn away from the objective illusion of individuated psychology/physicality and towards the light of the soul/true self/undisturbed subjectivity. basically he was telling people to stop identifying as the character in the video game and to shut it off so you don't become addicted to hitting 'continue' and being trapped in the cycle of virtual life after virtual life.

This is a challenge of translations. One view about what Buddha could have meant by anatta/ anatman- non existence of 'jeevatma'/'jeeva' which is a subtle (sukshma) existence within the body, mind of each individual (a concept in Hinduism about permanent individual existence incarnating since long before Buddha times) or he could have meant nothing can be defined as self (this or that) . In other words that which can't be pointed is self/bramha/consciousness. In any case, he realized total consciousness and that's why he is Buddha the awakened one.

No self, no other than self. Understand? If you claim to get it, you're lost. Knowing through not knowing is key and cannot be explained.

Rangtong Shentong

Sadhu sadhu.. you got the right understanding and said the Buddhad's said. Buddha never been said " you..we..not exist ".. but said " with the right practicing, you will never exist in this world, future world or in between " (meaning Paṭiccasamuppādasutta will stop and we will never creating a world any more..) .. " Never exist " 👈this is the wrong view called " uccheda diṭṭhi " (..annihilationism..) Not self or " anattā " only on.. 1. Form (Rūpaṁ) 2. Feeling (Vedanā) 3. Perception (saññā ) 4. Choices (saṅkhārā) 5. Consciousness (viññāṇaṁ) 👆 There is no other will be " not self " than these 5 . There are the suttas which a monk asked Buddha that.. " Not Self, not self what is be not self ? " then Buddha answered that " 5 aggregates are Not self " The one which can't defined as " self " and " no self " is unconditioned-element (asaṅkhataṁ) .. or Nibbāna Buddha said there are 2 main elements 1. Saṅkhata dhātu conditioned-element which is 5 aggregates 2. Asaṅkhata dhātu unconditioned-element Both are exist

no self means that the self can not be found in the body in which we occupy.

I guess the question becomes what becomes enlightened?

From what I understood anatta just rejects an empirical personality and shows an impermanent self

The self simply means collective.

Avalokitesvera Bodhisattva did in the Prajnaparamita Sutra. Sakyamuni Buddha did not.

and yes , there is no inherent soul, rather a mind that is always changing caused by perceptions ,memorys etc... neurons chatting...flow...so with anatta buddha was right. mind trys to protect the body and what mind thinks belongs to oneself. Thats nature and survival. But no inherent self in Nama/Rupa

The buddha taught that we should view the clinging aggrigates as not self. Beyone that the buddha never gave an answer because its irrelevant to the goal

I always struggled with this teaching 🤣

One question to the buddhist that.. " Why 5 aggregates are not self? " the answer form the buddhist will be. " Due to 5 aggregates are impermanent, therefore its not self " .. But the another question is.. " Why you declare thing that not impermanent is not self?. .. Are you the permanencet thing? " .. .. Mr.Doug... how are you going to answer this ? Thanks

this "anaata" concept becomes problematic if we think there's no rebirth.The buddha said that there's no permanent self that moves from this life to the next life. Actually There's no permanent self and there's not no permanent self.the simplest way to understand this is like this. Let's say there's a mango tree in our yard and we pluck a mango from it and plant the seed of it .after a few years, it grows into a big tree. (1) is the tree that grew from the seed that we planted exactly the same tree that we plucked it from? the answer is"no". it is totally different from the first tree actually it is not actually the first tree. (2) just because the second tree is totally different from the original tree and it is not the same , does it mean that the second tree has no connection to the first tree. the answer to this question is "no" too

There is no self as a permanent thing, that is just an irrefutable fact( analogy permanent label peg impermanent holes). Self referential then is only correctly nuanced as mere passing label to a passing local vicinity for functional purposes. Also by not having a deluded notion of a permanent self, people get over themselves and find a more so wholesome spontaneous discipline. Indeed most immoral behavior is based in unskilled selfish ignorant behavior.

Even if there were self, praise worthiness or blame worthiness, still doesn’t exist. Morality is still flimflam.

The problem with scholars (PhD) is they are using their limited intellect/mind to try to decphicer and understand consciousness

The trick is to try and stay in the middle, aye?

How about this?: The path consists of reductive discrimination that whatever occurs to one’s consciousness is not the self Thoughts of I and mine are samasaric ideation The unchanging self is that which is the goal: uncontrived ego

buddha said not self not no self anyone who says no self is ignornat of the real self which is brahman

I think Buddha was Talking about Non Identification..Rather than Non Self... Holding onto theories about Self is a fetter

If everything is flux how can anything be aware of the flux, what possible point of reference would flux have to be aware if itself through time? Something has to stand out of time and that is the Self. Why is our body permanent for about 80 years and serves as a vehicle for the consciences which can move to another body? There is an order with relative permanence which holds the body together, but from where the order in the Universe comes from? What are dakinis made of, what substance? If dakinis can have a non-physical body why not humans having souls made of the same? The soul (Jiva) creates an incarnated personality, but the soul itself is not permanent but lives and evolves maybe millions of years until it is absorbed into Atma (the Self) sometimes called God-realisation. The Self is not an object, it is an infinite depth of the Witness, void yet not empty, one with the Absolute. I'll stick to Advatia Vedanta ❤😊

shiva and ifrit

Doug, your big problem here is that people like you are still trying to translate "Atman" as the old English word "self". What is the hindu definition of Atman? What is the English definition of self? Do these two definitions match? No not at all. You should instead teach that the closest we can come to an English definition of atman is "the God-/Universe-within". Then teach the problems of "self-centered thinking". In English the self is what diffentrates you from me - what the buddha call "the conventional-self" and what other hindus call "the lower-self".

raud na

No self is not a concept therefore it cannot be intellectually understood. In truth there is absolutely no self whatsoever. You are not in control and you cannot find enlightenment. The people that have come to this realization only did so because of their karma. It is paradoxical because language is dualistic so we use pronouns like I me or mine but all that exist that we call me is only a bundle of preconditioned biases and beliefs. That is an illusion so the question is that if there is no self then what is there because it is true that there is no nihilism and the answer to that is beyond what can be described but it can be experienced. Therefore instead of trying to conceptualize what cannot be conceived we should rather practice to come to the experience of no self.