🧡 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 🙂

Doug, this is the kind of dharma talk I needed to hear. And it is also an indictment on a mistake I have wanted to address. I will seek out the source material on this topic. Thank you so much.

"There is no bodhi tree, nor is there a mirror. In truth, all is void. Where can dust fall?" I hadn't heard the specific phrasing Eye Consciousness before, and I immediately thought of "ineluctable modality of the visible: at least that if no more, thought through my eyes," from Ulysses. We know Joyce had an interest in Buddhism, I wonder if it influenced that passage.

I bought a great little book called “The Buddha’s Doctrine of Anatta - A Comparative Study of Self and Not-Self in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Western Philosophy” by Buddhadasa. I got it from Amazon, but it is freely available in PDF on the web if you do a search.

Another succinct and carefully-constructed presentation: thank-you!

Dear Sir,I am super impressed by your understanding about these kind of rare subtle deep Dhamma phenomena. Same the Name is not just 'sathi' it has to be 'saathi'. Becuase there is a word call 'sathi' means mindfulness. May you be free from all suffering with the infinite blessings from noble triple gems.!

Great presentation. Very thoughtful. But after 20 years studying Buddhism, I now tend towards agreement with the wayward monk. As a student now of Vedanta, I feel like h finally making progress spiritually. Don’t get me wrong, i love the Buddhadharma. But there is a simplicity to the Upanishad model. Tat Vam Asi, Thou Art That. From a philosophical perspective, think of Ochams Razor. Also, in regards later Buddhism, they also brought in the notion of Buddha Nature, and Tathatagatagarba, in addition to the Tibetan LuminousMind (maybe the same idea). Its as if later Buddhism, perhaps in competition with the veda tradition for popular support, made a course correction away from the Buddhas philosophically austere, almost nihilistic, model for awakening.

It would be interesting to compare the Buddha's view with Avecina's "Floating man" thought experiment. Avecina thought that a person disconnected from all sense stimuli, will still be conscious of something, the person will still be self-aware. He then tries to use this thought experiment to argue for the existence of the soul.

Once my antagonist made the claim that he once improved the Buddha speech when he was the fisherman son. He has the black magic skill to be able to ‘transplant’ thoughts and actions from person to person. He goes from life to life by distributing his own thoughts and actions (karma) to other people and harvesting some of these back in his next life. I see this mind as an alien from a rocky planet that took possession of bodies (mostly humans) on earth. This is a different view on the fisherman son.

Jay Bhim namo buddhay 💙💙💙 🙏🏼😊

Very good lecture. After many years of practicing maintaining awareness from the waking state into falling asleep to the dreaming state of sleep. One thing had become clear there was my consciousness which had developed with my experiences and was in control. But there was a another that was the watcher behind it all. Whatever you want to call it a soul i dont have the words other somehow i was apart of this silent witness and yet somehow felt separate.

Hi Doug, Appreciate the video but the Sutta says 'sensing' (any one of the six senses) is dependent on the meeting of sense object, sense base and sense consciousness. It would be preferable not to use the word 'contact' as it is usually a translation of phassa - that which is born of ignorance. If sensing were to be dependent on phassa, then it would wrongly imply that arahantship equals annihilation, which is not the case. Sorry if it's a little specific with regard to translation of the terminology used but just for the sake of better clarity :) Metta

Thank you

Very interesting! As you have mentioned the term 'unborn', may you elaborate a bit on the idea of the 'unborn' that exists in the zen (and probably other) schools? I have heard about the 'unborn' in reference to the methaphor (or maybe rinzai koan) of '(which was) your face before your parents met?'

🙏

When a person thinks, is there a thinker who thinks thoughts or there is only thinking? There is only thinking. The act of thinking produces a thinker who thinks and that is what we refer to as the self, but as the the Buddha points out this idea of a thinker (the self) is an illusion created and sustained by thinking. This illusion of a thinker is created by thinking and it tries to control. It tries to control fear, desire, anxiety, greed, all of which are the result of thinking. One thought tries to control another thought. The same goes for sensation. Is there an experiencer of sensation or there is only sensation? There is only sensation. This dualistic view of an experiencer and experience is also sustained by our language. When there is anger we say "I am angry" which implies a self who experiences anger, but the reality is there is only anger, not someone who is experiencing anger.

Namo buddhay Doug

When you say "over the years and centuries and millennia of Buddhism, other ideas have taken the place of this consciousness in the Buddha Dharma, as a potential ground of our continuation. And one of these ideas springs out of the concept of the luminous mind." Another idea, introduced by Buddhagosa in the Visuddhimagga, speaks of "rebirth consciousness" that goes from one lifetime to the next. What interests me about this idea is the way it is used in the teaching of dependent origination. In this case, it is dependent origination over three lifetimes; the first two links are experienced in the past lifetime, the next eight links are experienced in the present lifetime, and the last two links are experienced in the future lifetime. How can that be helpful in understanding the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination as it pertains to our lifetime now?

Buddham saranam gacchami 💚

This is very interesting because a common believe, these days, is that a person’s essence is eternal. Hmmm wonder what is true, and also wonder how reincarnation could occur without persistent ‘ something. ‘

🙏🙏🙏

🙏🏽

I think this concept can be expanded upon. Consciousness is constantly being birthed and decayed in a sense yes. In this case the senses are used as examples. The consciousness of this eye, nose etc experiencing it's unique perspective in the universe which is constantly changing, each experience is being born and decaying moment to moment as time unfolds. My eye, your eye, each, the eye of a bee experiencing UV light, of an ants experiencing pheromones, a light receptor cell experiencing the impact of photons. A DNA strand of folding, the experience of an atom being drawn towards another atom etc. Consciousness in this view is not a content of the universe, it is an interdependent pre requisite component, each "piece" of the universe has a unique 'relative' lense of which to experience the rest, to varying degrees of complexity.

What Brihadaranyaka Upanushad refers to as SELF or Brahman is Transcendent Consciousness or Transpersonal Consciousness which is the ONE Consciousness which is outside of Space Time and Creation.It is the knower or witness but has no agency.The atma( individuated Consciousness) is identical to Brahman.It is unborn or uncreated and neither does it reincarnates.What reincarnates is the Subtle body(19 components)which contains the Karmic patterns(Samskaras).What in Buddhism is refered to as SHUNYATHA(non self)is identical to Brahman.There has to be an entity to be reborn or for rebirth.That entity that takes a new body is the Subtle body.Vedanta declares that as long as we think that we are the subtle body( due to ignorance and identification with Karma) we will reincarnate due to Dependent Arising.Once we realise we the Atma we will not take rebirth.Both Buddha and the Vedas are alluding to the same Transcendent Reality which is immortal and Bliss but themetaphors are opposite.

😊🙏🏻

I read about this in the Historical Buddha by H.W. Schumann

Budhham sarnam gachhami🙏

Buddha blames Monk Sati's misunderstanding about consciousness; therefore, Buddha explains him what is His teaching. Also, Buddha blames Monk Malukya Putta and educates him. The reason why? Their misunderstanding is dangerous for others. Because they are monks and his pupils who need to understand the truth.

Thank you for this video. I am a bit confused. In the Thai forest tradition it is often said "Consciousness never dies", but it is also said that this consciousness is not personal. It is always there and only the Kilesa give the delusion of a self. I tried to figure this out and came to the conclusion that they could use this term to describe nibbana and some then say "pure consciousness" to it. I find that pretty confusing, because somehow it seems to contradict MN38. Some also say that there is more than one consciousness, the sensory consciousness (eyes, ears, nose, etc., Vinjana). And there is the citta that never dies. There is also something else outside of it called an "observer". In Tan Ajahn Dtun's biography I first read that this "observer" is Avija and I think that agrees with MN38. In some speeches of well-known Ajahns I have heard that consciousness (which never dies) should be in the heart and as I said, I have not yet found out. Maybe Nibbana is ment by it? But why not just call it Nibbana? Any suggestions ?

So I'm studying Yoga right now, and I think that you're misinterpreting the Upanishads a little bit here. All of the things that you mentioned, sight, smell, taste, etc, are all objects of consciousness, and are impermanent and changing. However, there is a belief that the ability to see or the power of consciousness is eternal. So from the Yogic perspective, no thing is eternal, but the light of consciousness is everpresent with or without objects of awareness to illuminate. In a similar sense, the vacuum of space appears dark, despite having the light of the sun moving through it. We can only see the light of the sun once it hits something. The light is always there, but there aren't always objects to illuminate. Now the mention of consciousness being the controller, I think is a view of the Upanishads and doesn't seem to carry forward into other Yogic philosophy that develops. I would agree that consciousness doesn't control the objects of awareness... But to be honest, I don't know what role consciousness actually plays. Anyways, thanks for this video, I always learn something new when you post, so I really appreciate it.

Hi..I would like to know on vegetarian in buddhism. Tqvm.

buddha said non-inner self. an means non atta means inner self. However, buddhism is against any self-conception, unless for practical reasons.

But how did Buddha knew all this that everything has cause he definitely knew it by himself that himself in him must be permanent to see everything temporary this is mind boggling can anyone give me a argument to this so i can understand more

Hi Doug, good video. I would like to leave a future video suggestion here: "Early Buddhism in the context of the singularity and transhumanism".

In the past, I wasted a lot of time and energy trying to understand the concept of non-self. I reckon if the Buddha could see us today, he might regret he ever mentioned it. So much confusion, misunderstanding, wrong views and intellectualising. Sure, for some it seems important - fair enough - to each their own. But for me, the teaching of non-self was an obstacle in the sense that I could not understand it intellectually. I decided to give up trying to understand it and concentrate more on meditation. It is through meditation, not trying to figure it out intellectually, that I occasionally get a glimpse of what non-self is. Maybe some people who are smarter than me have had better luck. But I reckon, for me at least, that non self needs to be experienced to be understood.

If there is no such thing as a consolidated self/consciousness that continues, what is that "thing" that gets released from the cycle of birth and death upon attaining nirvana? I remember that you did a video on "what of us continues"? Mahayana acknowledge that there is a consciousness that continues, and some sects subdivide this consciousness into 8 parts (for deep doctrinal study purposes). Is it possible that there is a middle ground between these two opposing views?

as a beginner, so is one going for absolute purity (where one's still there but not born again) or completely extinguished (gone) ?

I think Lord Buddha did not talk about Non Self but rather Non Identification.. Not identifying with any description of self.. The vedantic description is also a form of Labeling of self..We can question that on what basis are the Upanishadic writers mentioning the qualities of the self? I think Buddhism is more of Non Identification than Non Self..

Rich discussion. Empty the heart and Sati will reveal itself. Sati is the precursor to mindfulness. "Why do I move"? From the view point of a returner per say. Would be different for a non returner. No doubt. Typical psychological hierarchy of both the East and the West. But I am drunk, lol.

In the backdrop of this thesis, can you please explain the relevance of reincarnation in Buddhism? In simpler words, 'what' or 'who' is then reborn, if nibbānā isn't attained? Not the the anatta, not the aggregates, then what?

So the Buddha says that our internal monologue is not us, not the “self”?

In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvaana sutta Buddha affirms the existence of the Eternal Self(including AND also beyond the five aggregates) -- thats what the upanishads talk of. The Buddha denied the induvidual self / ego -- not the Eternal Atman - he didn't even mention a thing about it. But enquire deeply into Niravaana -- what that state is. And enquire deeply into what the nature of Atman is -- the Advaitic. You won't find much difference. Buddha didn't go deep enough to touch the realm of Atman -- or he did. He certainly knew far more than what he taught. As he revealed once ton Ananda -- holding the leaves in his fist to demonstrate. And certainly many (especially Tibetan)Buddhist mystics affirmed the Self -- not scholars. Scholars themelves don't know anything -- no experiential realization. Only parroting Buddha's words, dry scriptures. They are far from Nirvaana. All these words cease there. Because it's beyond the mind's grasp -- scholasticism won't help. Meditation would.

I think you misused the word 'indicative'

☸️☸️☸️☸️☸️☸️☸️🤔🤔🤔🤔

Doug the consciousness that vedanta talks about is not vijnana, the emptiness or anatta of buddhism is the same as fullness or the ultimate reality referred to as atman in vedanta. The Buddha nature is exactly what vedantins call as Brahman, the self luminous light or chit (consciousness).

I have a question, why aren't all buddhists vegan?

It's Dhamm not Dharma

The Buddha teaching anatman Or no self isn't that just as much a concept or a belief as brahman's teaching that there is atman?

If there is no self, there is no suffering. Bcz there is no suffering, there is no escape from it. Buddhists are contradicting themselves. Analysis of Deep Sleep will get rid of wrong idea of "absence of Self".

Not sure about Buddhist teachings. He seems to endorse the view that Kings and wealthy lived noble lives in past lives and that is how they achieved their present positions. But we all know people like Kissinger, Bush, Rumsfeld who were war criminals and did quite well in this world. It is hard for me to believe they lived such noble lives in the past, and now suddenly became rather monstrous, yet still enjoying their good karma. I think the interpretation of Jesus or even that found in Bhagavad Gita more realistic. That human beings of wealth and privilege are often diabolical and that the blessed are often downtrodden. Also many times people need to engage in action against such a society and not assume the blessings will be there in the next lives. The Buddhist notion that to live ethically then you will build a great karma in the next life or lives seems silly judging how those that live ethically to some extent are not treated too well in human society. Also animals are often as loving as humans or even more so and we are to believe that human beings happened to become human because they are so much better. Look at the factory farms and the terror we allow as a society without blinking an eye. But in my view, many proclaim such wisdom in Buddhism, especially the secular, but it seems Buddhism has some big holes. Like proclaiming Karma, reincarnation, and non self together going on for endless lives when there is no substance at all. Either the notion of anything continuing is false and it all ends when the body dies, since the body has to be there for the various consciences, or there is something that continues even though it is constantly changing. I think the Buddha tried to have it both ways based on culture and beliefs of his time but the reasoning isn't there.