I agree. Great talk. Just discovered him tonight whilst watching Argentina beat France in world cup. Had match muted mostly. Ha ha. See you in the talks at BSWA.
@deeduck20384 жыл бұрын
สาธุครับ
@bodhi94645 жыл бұрын
Sadhu sadhu sadhu 🙏🏼
@rov61635 жыл бұрын
สาธุ สาธุ สาธุ
@y9w16 жыл бұрын
The Ajahn seems to be having a great time! Contagious joy. Great explanation of anatta also. Clear, simple but not superficial. And very helpful and related answers. Big bow. Thank you 🙏🌼
This is a very wise monk teaching true buddhist teachings.
@lordbyron36039 жыл бұрын
WOW! The way you explain things has helped me to understand the "self" more -- what it is (simply a process), the process that takes place, how the process arises and what to do about it. This is an excellent talk on the subject. Thank Ajahn. Sadhu 3X.
@hanrajakaruna58288 жыл бұрын
Great talk! Thanks
@ReliefHereNow9 жыл бұрын
thankyou for the upload. anumodana
@sheilakirwan69007 жыл бұрын
The important thing is to practise ....thanks for this wisdom ....
@paulmitchell53496 жыл бұрын
...and as for eating the same meal forever...Samuel Beckett said that ''habit is a great deadener''.
@Mitch-v1y7 жыл бұрын
Beautiful. 🙏🙏🙏
@dromgarvan6 жыл бұрын
What a clear explanation. Thank you.
@lohpinghong87742 жыл бұрын
Shadu Shadu Shadu
@ReliefHereNow9 жыл бұрын
this is such an awesome Dhamma talk. _()_ _()_ _()_
@metafisicacibernetica3 жыл бұрын
What has Buddhism to say of the Self? "That's not my Self" (na me so atta); this, and the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta) predicated of the world and all "things" (sabbe dhamma anatta); Identical with the Brahmanical "of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul", (anatma hi martyah [SB., II. 2. 2. 3]). [KN J-1441] “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”. For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but what it is not. There is never and nowhere in sutra, a ‘doctrine of no-Soul’, but a doctrine of what the Soul is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.). It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical “self” in the very meaning of “my-self” (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta, i.e. Bob, Sue, Larry etc.), one might say in accordance with the command ‘denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what modern and highly unenlightened writers mean to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say and do in fact say, is that the Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata), Supreme-Self (mahatta’), uncaused (samskrta), undying (amara) and eternal (nicca) of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta’, “This/these are not my Soul” (na me so atta’= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama), a statement to which the words of Sankhara are peculiarly apposite, “Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real” [Br. Sutra III.2.22]; since it was not for the Buddha, but for the nihilist (natthika), to deny the Soul. For, [SN 3.82] “yad anatta….na me so atta, “what is anatta…(means) that is not my Atman”; the extremely descriptive illumination of all thing which are Selfless (anattati) would be both meaningless and a waste of much time for Gotama were (as the foolish commentators espousing Buddhism’s denial of the atman) to clarify and simplify his sermons by outright declaring ‘followers, there is no atman!’, however no such passage exists. The Pali for said passage would be: ‘bhikkhave, natthattati!’; and most certainly such a passage would prove the holy grail and boon for the Theravadin nihilists (materialists) who have ‘protesteth too much’ that Buddhism is one in which the atman is rejected, but to no avail or help to their untenable views and position by the teachings themselves. Outside of going into the doctrines of later schisms of Buddhism, such as Sarvastivada, Theravada, Vajrayana, Madhyamika, and lastly Zen, the oldest existing texts (Nikayas) of Buddhism which predate all these later schools of Buddhism [The Sanchi and Bharut inscriptions (aka the Pillar edicts) unquestionably dated to the middle of the second century B.C.E. push the composition of the 5 Nikayas back to a earlier date by mentioning the word “pañcanekayika” (Five Nikyas), thereby placing the Nikayas as put together (no later than) at a period about half way between the death of the Buddha and the accession of Asoka (before 265 B.C.), as such the 5 Nikayas, the earliest existing texts of Buddhism, must have been well known and well established far earlier than generally perceived. Finally proving the majority of the five Nikayas could not have been composed any later than the very earliest portion of the third century B.C.E.], anatta is never used pejoratively in any sense in the Nikayas by Gotama the Buddha, who himself has said: [MN 1.140] “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering (that being avijja, or nescience/agnosis), and its ending (avijja).” Further investigation into negative theology is the reference by which one should be directed as to a further understanding of this 'negative' methodology which the term anatta illuminates. It should be noted with great importance that the founder of Advaita Vedanta, Samkara used the term anatman lavishly in the exact same manner as does Buddhism, however in all of time since his passing, none have accused Samkara of espousing a denial of the Atman. Such as: “Atma-anatma vivekah kartavyo bandha nuktaye”“The wiseman should discriminate between the Atman and the non-Atman (anatman) in order to be liberated.” [Vivekacudamani of Samkara v. 152], “Anatman cintanam tyaktva kasmalam duhkah karanam, vintayatmanam ananda rupam yan-mukti karanam.””Give up all that is non-Atman (anatman), which is the cause of all misery, think only of the Atman, which is blissful and the locus of all liberation.” [Vivekacudamani of Samkara v. 379], “Every qualifying characteristic is, as the non-Atman (anatman), comparable to the empty hand.” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 6.2], “the intellect, its modifications, and objects are the non-Atman (anatman).” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 14.9], “The gain of the non-Atman (anatman) is no gain at all. Therefore one should give up the notion that one is the non-Atman (anatman).” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 14.44]. In none of the Buddhist suttas is there support for "there is no-atman" theories of anatta . The message is simply to cease regarding the very khandhas in those terms by which the notion of atman has, itself, been so easily misconstrued. As has been shown, detaching oneself from the phenomenal desire for the psycho-physical existence was also a central part of Samkara’s strategy. There is, hence, nothing in the suttas that Samkara, the chief proponent of Advaita Vedanta, would have disagreed with.
@paulmitchell53496 жыл бұрын
HI Tira!! Best wishes from Sheffield,England.Been on tudong recently?Last saw you about 1985/6.
@sheilakirwan69007 жыл бұрын
...and mindfulness needs to be developed to a high degree....
@ptuli5009 жыл бұрын
Such an awesome answer to the questions regarding Maharishi so and so...The problem with the Indian Gurus is that they highly theories and intellectualize things and just stay in the realm of philosophy while they themselves could be chasing women, and what not... very little practical application....
@metafisicacibernetica3 жыл бұрын
Do you read Pali, sir? Do you know how many times Sakamune quoted the ADJECTIVE Anatta in the Nikayas, i mean, did you read the Pali Canon? Do you know what Brahmayama is? You turned an ADJECTIVE into a proper NOUN because of your historical ignorance... If X is not A, If X is not B, If X is not C: so I can't say that X doesn't exist. You are not good in logic, sorry.
@MahaPrachnya Жыл бұрын
Your logic base on self
@joewoodistiller2 жыл бұрын
Birth and death occurs every single moment. For example your thoughts keep arising and disappearing,your inbreath and outbreath,like and dislike,happy and sad, If you look at it carefully they are in fact birth and death. One more example night and day,sleep and awaken this are all symbols of birth and death. It is inseparable for the ignorance. Not for the Ariya who has stop this ignorance process. One who see nibanna saw the end of birth and death and stop it permanently....nibanna...the uncondition,unborn where birth and death dies not exist. Suki hotu. Buddhang saranam gacchami
@paulmitchell53496 жыл бұрын
….and after all that time it seems your robe still doesn't quite fit!