Understanding Non-self: Khemaka's Story

[@smlanka4u]

I'm living in a Buddhist country, but I didn't know about that story. Thank you for sharing that story with us. However, I was a catholic, and I went to catholic schools only. I converted to Buddhism when I was around 11 years old, but I couldn't learn Buddhism from a school. You teach Buddhism well, and your KZbin channel is like a buddhist school.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes there are so many interesting stories and discourses!

[@smlanka4u]

@@DougsDharma , Yes of course. Sometimes I have surprised about how all those incidents happened at the time of the Buddha. However, thank you for your reply.

[@yongjiean9980]

You made the best decision in life to be a Buddhist

[@archiekennedy4741]

Agree. Mr. Smith provides a wonderful learning resource.

[@richmondpeiris4432]

If you want to know the source and details of the Sutta, please refer to Khemaka Sutta in Sutta Pitaka's Samyutta nikaya, Khandha Samyutta, Thera vagga. Thanks.

[@FRED-gx2qk]

Excellent talk much appreciated 👌

[@DougsDharma]

Glad it was helpful!

[@tomkaiser]

Thank you for sharing this story and for telling it so vividly. I will try to re-tell it in our Sangha

[@DougsDharma]

Nice, I hope your sangha enjoys it!

[@Sunshine-gi6ev]

That's a beautiful story Doug and you narrated so eloquently. Wondering, why I haven't heard or read this story.

[@DougsDharma]

Many of these early Buddhist stories aren’t well known.

[@bobhohmann5653]

This is a perfect example of how much of a pretzel Buddhists have to wrap themselves into to explain a captain obvious truth, and an associated fallacy. The truth is, of course on an incremental passage of time our experiences, biology, etc change from point A to point B. Nobody looks into a mirror at age 60 and expects to see an infant in the reflection. The fallacy of the non self is that my name is Bob, and nobody ever thinks I'm Steve, or even Not-Bob The incremental time from the previous points A to B, do change me in a measure loosely proportional to the time period of the increment, but the totality of experiences I've had, my DNA, etc, define who I am at any period of time, and even if that changes from A to B, I'm still not Steve, I am Bob. I've augmented, but I simply am not non existent just because I change. I feel as if this non self idea is a relic that Buddhists are stuck with that knowledge and time has refuted, hence the need to wrap so many pretzels.

[@nsbd90now]

I totally relate to Khemaka and this story, especially as an oldster. I definitely have an intellectual and imaginative understanding of such matters because I am overly-intellectualized and academic, wrestling with that "scholastic conceit" I think you've mentioned in other videos. I really like the analogies/simile/metaphor of a lingering scent, or a stained cloth. It's actually very helpful to know it's kind of normal. I'm glad the story has a happy ending! 😀

[@DougsDharma]

Yes the intellectual stuff attracts me too! 😄

[@nsbd90now]

@@DougsDharma I can tell! lol!

[@meditemoscl5019]

I really enjoyed the story and it gave me a lot of light to understand Anatta and to understand the difference of how I emotionally feel and how conceptually I feel about the idea of a self. Identification, ownership and conceit; the three selfing activities that don’t go away at the same time. Thank you Doug. Jorge Seguel from Chile.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Jorge, I hope you're doing well! 🙏😊

[@havenbastion]

Liked for an appropriate and earned Ask in the right place.

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@mf1823]

…sort of like the Disney ending…I like that. It feels refreshing and light. For me the business of enlightenment gets sometimes so heavy.

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@laika5757]

Music to my ears.. 🎼🎶🎸

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@studentofspacetime]

Very nice video. Relinquishing the idea that consciousness is not the self (nor owned by it) is extremely difficult even at the intellectual level.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes it is a long and difficult practice to perfect Andrés.

[@studentofspacetime]

​@@DougsDharma Can you explain the distinction between the Buddhist concept of no-self and the vedantic concept of "true self"? They seem quite similar. The neo-advaitans talk about the "neti-neti" meditation, where one proceeds to deconstruct the person by analysis of the kind "I am not my body, I am aware of my body ... I am not my thoughts, I am aware of my thoughts" and so on. In the end, they conclude that "I am the awareness".

[@DougsDharma]

Right. The difference is that the Buddha goes one step farther. "Awareness" in the tradition is usually taken to be another word for "consciousness", and the Buddha says very emphatically that "I am not my consciousness". There is nothing in our experience that we can point to and say "I am that".

[@studentofspacetime]

@@DougsDharma Is this distinction essential, or semantic? The neo-advaita teachers like E. Tolle or Mooji are very clear in saying that the "separate self" is an illusion. They will say that your true self is the boundless, impersonal awareness that pervades everything. I've heard analogies like, "you are not the character on the tv show, you are the screen itself" and so on. So, they seem to claim that there is a universal substrate consciousness that is not mine nor yours, but simply is. I realize that this sounds a lot like the concept of Brahman. But I can't quite make the distinction with the concept of Dharmakaya, or Buddha-nature. Perhaps the difference is that the Buddha is more sober and scientific in not formulating theories about it, but in deconstructing by observing what can be directly observed.

[@DougsDharma]

This is one way that the early teaching differs from much later Buddhism. In the early teaching the Buddha is quite clear that there is no permanent, unchanging self of any kind, including a universal consciousness. (Which indeed would be Brahman).

[@austinthornton3407]

Doug: Congratulations on getting to 5000 subscribers. Great channel.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Austin! 🙏

[@fooboomoo]

Looks like you have grown nicely this past year, yet you content deserves to be seen much more!

[@satsala4198]

38k now :)

[@รารา-พ4ฦ]

Congratulation to wiser calmer kinder of Doug's Dharma * * * * * !

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks and be well! 🙏

[@atomnous]

I conceptually understand it... But I still have this image of "self" seems to be attached to the eye of mind. The good news is my long term depression has vanished as I somehow attach this tiny self-concept with Buddha nature. This is still something very beneficial I feel, even if not for total enlightenment. Thanks, Doug.

[@DougsDharma]

You're very welcome! Yes this persistence is something many of us share. For the Buddha it's an example of a "view" of the self, a concept that doesn't really fit with the way things are but that is stubborn.

[@atomnous]

@@DougsDharma Yes, this isn't it.. I sense somehow that it's false. But I feel I can start to stand on my feet and do something at the very least. ❤️

[@xiaomaozen]

Accidentally (and fortunately!), I've stumbled upon this great "old" video, Doug! You should - in my humble opinion - add it to your Non-self playlist! As a fan of good metaphors, I like this underwear thing a lot. 🤣 And one thing is for sure: As long as one thinks that one is further down the road than Khemaka, one's underwear is still stinky... 🤣 ❤️🐱🙏

[@DougsDharma]

😄😄 Good suggestion, I've added it to the Self and Non-Self playlist!

[@kennethdey8730]

That was a very good and deep teaching. It helped me to understand this complex topic better.

[@DougsDharma]

Glad it was helpful!

[@Jordiwasp]

Thanks Doug. Very illuminating story. See if I get this right. The Buddha's Dharma does not attempt to answer the question "who am I?" as other Dharmas may do (with the answers my soul, God, Dao or Brahman, for instance) but rather answers the questions "Is this me?" or "is this mine?" with the simple answer "no", hoping that through practice you will desist in asking this question, as there will not be any sense of "I" wondering about its identity anymore (even if there may actually be some self behind but who does not wonder about its identity anymore) . Am I close? (Or, I should say "is it close?).

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, I think that's close. Though this is something that really has to be got at emotionally rather than (only) intellectually.

[@paulinewqi]

Just discovered your website... Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge...makes new analyse everything.....

[@DougsDharma]

Great Pauline, and welcome! So happy to have you here.

[@Rhobyn]

The beginning of this sutta is actually kind of funny and I recommend everyone read, or better yet listen to, it once. I'm not sure if humor was intended, but it does make me smile.

[@DougsDharma]

🙏

[@tombrzezinski4961]

Regarding your video Non self in your bones.... well explained. I think I'm beginning to get some of this

[@DougsDharma]

That's great to hear Tom. Be well. 🙏

[@stevenbateman9597]

Thanks for the information that you put across in a way that can be understood. Can you give any information about the buhddist heavens and hells. Best wishes

[@DougsDharma]

Sure, I did an earlier video that touched on a lot of that: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gHbagqmim7KInJo

[@yurapathy]

Thanks!

[@geraldinemkilbride486]

Hi Doug, thank you for your expositions - clear and v. Helpful. How do you think about/relate to the non-dualism of some one like Francis Lucille or Tony Parsons - who, I understand, attain enlightenment in a moment and see ‘self’ as an illusion? The gradual process associated with Buddhist practice appears to be seen as unnecessary...I would be grateful to hear your thoughts.

[@DougsDharma]

You're very welcome Geraldine. I'm not familiar with the people you mention, but in general the idea of enlightenment in early Buddhism is that it is the complete eradication of greed, hatred, and delusion. There are many very powerful and beautiful experiences we can have in life, but if an experience doesn't rid us once and for all of greed, hatred, and delusion then it isn't enlightenment. That is, it requires a very deep change in our emotional life. This I think is a practice that will take awhile.

[@vimalkirti4845]

-Francis Lucille - Hindu philosophy self, not Buddhist no-self

[@vimalkirti4845]

Tony Parsons - attended Osho (Buddhist concepts), but he knows not what he knows

[@vimalkirti4845]

- for highly evolved persons instant enlightenment is possible , but very difficult for average person who may have to use the gradual practices

[@Ghatikara]

This was very very helpful

[@DougsDharma]

Ah, glad to hear it Echinoderm. 🙏

[@dotsomething]

Doug, where does the Bodhicharyavatara fit into all of this? Do you have any plans to cover it and its place in buddhism, particularly from a secular perspective? It seems to be ever present but hardly discussed. Many thanks for the service you provide to the community. It's greatly appreciated.

[@DougsDharma]

Hi Flynn, the Bodhicaryāvatāra is a fascinating but quite late book (8th c. CE) in the Mahāyāna tradition explaining the bodhisattva path. It's pretty well outside the scope of what I deal with on this channel, which is (generally) early Buddhism. I might mention it eventually, but realistically even if I did it'd have to be a tiny bit here and there because to do a treatment of the whole work would take a huge amount of time! 🙂

[@dotsomething]

Your answer helps with this 'where it fits in,' thank you. :) Emptiness and no-self are like the pay-wall to deeper well-being. ;) Realising their insight innately is where it gets good, so to speak. It took quite the effort for me to really understand them from an intellectual perspective, but I still have my work cut out for me. lol Thank you for the reply, Doug! Have a lovely evening.

[@DougsDharma]

You as well Flynn, thanks! 🙏

[@allanouellette5591]

One thing I have struggled with (sorry this is not exactly related to the content of this particular video) is the apparent conflict between trying to get rid of craving and desiring (as it seems that buddhism stresses that this striving can be the source of suffering) and the notion of trying to better myself, striving to further my career, improve my lot in life, etc. Is there the potential to become fatalistic if you try to follow buddhist philosophy too strictly?

[@DougsDharma]

Yes there seems to be a conflict here between striving to better oneself and desiring the same. I did an earlier video that might be helpful Allan: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIXUmpWCgr5kgq8 But I’m not sure about fatalism. The Buddha was not a fatalist and indeed argued against fatalism. I also have a video on the Buddha’s six major competitors, one of whom was a fatalist: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6Dbkpqjqbh7f5I

[@allanouellette5591]

@@DougsDharma Thanks for the reply, Doug. Maybe fatalism was a poor choice of terms. I was just wondering that if you learn to not grasp for things and learn not to push the unpleasant away, then perhaps you are letting life come to you as it will, and in that sense, you are resigning yourself to your own fate. It's likely that my superficial understanding of buddhist teaching that has led me to see this as a potential pitfall of the dharma. I will watch the video you recommend and see of that clears any of this up for me. I appreciate your time.

[@allanouellette5591]

I just finished watching the video you recommended; it did shed some light on things. Aversion and conceit can be skillful if they are the means to the end of going further along the path toward being free of such impulses. I am actually thinking about striving and conceit on a more prosaic level, such as reading the writing of someone else (I am a writer) and using this comparison as inspiration to get better at writing, and in that way, to improve myself. I can accept that this is unskillful, but as you say, that doesn't necessarily equal unethical. I guess it all boils down to whether you see these things as defining who you are. Thanks, again, for the though-provoking videos.

[@DougsDharma]

Right, I would take the same advice from that video and apply it to ordinary life. It can sometimes be useful in a mundane sense to strive for important goals. This is part of what it is to live an ordinary householder life. But when we are thinking of the higher goals of the path then we will eventually want to reach an end to that kind of striving. 🙏

[@videomaster8580]

If there is no self, what does it matter if you believe it or not? Also what is there to be reborn if there is nothing there? Thanks!

[@DougsDharma]

Did the Buddha really teach no self? kzbin.info/www/bejne/rYann4Ova6Z2fZY . What continues? kzbin.info/www/bejne/f5KrZJmCnbRmjsU

[@CHRIStoriker92]

Do you think the "Non-Self" is the Missing of a indiviual and immortal and not-changeable core (like the missing of a eternal soul) inside of us, but because there is "Self" in the word "Non-Self" also a changing, mortal and collective core, which connects us to our surrounding world and other humans and living beings? Or is the second aspect more the function of Buddha nature (= Self ?) ?

[@uuutuuube3691]

Really liked this one stories are really helpful thanks

[@DougsDharma]

Great, glad to hear John.

[@thkna2368]

Hey doug, the self or eternal viwe in buddhism is realy a thing which exist according to somone's desire or someone can controle it within the inside. Also that viwe is born due the desire. That means, when the desire happens in someons mind this self viwe is automatically built. Therefore every one in the world do everything on that viwe. If you realy see it, you will see it is like a flower(the sin flower). That means, even if you did whatever kind of thing, every thing are happening based on that viwe. Therefore that self viwe is the middle of the flower built from the burning desire.

[@DougsDharma]

Indeed so Darshana, thanks!

[@jeremyweate1969]

Nice story Doug. Q: how is embodying non-self in your bones compatible with Sila and ethical responsibility? Ethics surely requires a self-other relation...

[@DougsDharma]

Actually I think ethical responsibility requires us to renounce our ordinary ego-driven desires, to break down the barriers between self and other. That said, non-self doesn't mean no-self. It means no permanent, unchanging self.

[@vikram2pancholi]

I wonder, how can one consider the consciousness (the one that seeks and answers) as non-self? Kindly enlighten.

[@DougsDharma]

Well to begin with consciousness is not the one who seeks and answers. Consciousness is not “one”. It’s many.

[@vikram2pancholi]

@@DougsDharma Not quite convincing.. but Thanks a lot for responding.

[@vimalkirti4845]

- consciousness is part of self, there is no consciousness in non-self

[@sahassaransi_mw]

@@vikram2pancholi hi! To my understanding , there is not one consciousness, rather a stream of consciousnesses . Consciousness comes into existence when there is one of the sense organs and a corresponding object ( for example , eye and an eye object or image ) then there arises an eye consciousness. Consciousness requires conditions to arise , it is not a soul . It is fleeting and impermanent.

[@genem7451]

Joko Beck, the late Zen priest, said In Nothing Special, that enlightenment is simply the absence of concern for self.That comment really cuts through the mostly ethereal and abstract descriptions of the process. She also considers enlightenment much less valuable than an enlightened life. That fits with the Zen saying, Before enlightenment, cut wood and carry water. After enlightenment, cut wood and carry water.

[@DougsDharma]

Not being awakened myself I can only guess, but that does sound a reasonable way to take it.

[@vimalkirti4845]

- superficial explanations for the beginner

[@didjesbydan]

Very well put. The greatest difficulty for this set of aggregates is that living life in the world requires these aggregates to be functioning well (evolutionarily adaptive traits that they are), and so it is hard to even imagine intellectually any theoretical possibility of every residue finally vanishing. It seems a set of aggregates would have to fully drop out, perhaps riding the liminal just barely above death in order to be fully rid of identifying as self any particular aggregate or set of them. This also points to why philosophers like Nietzsche called these paradigms nihilistic. Is it even a theoretical possibility not to just fully extinguish every residue of self but to fully immerse in the world, thriving and achieving great things? The West with its individuation paradigm has tended to resist this perceived de-selving nihilist program, also pointing out that for the Buddha to abandon wife and family was quite irresponsible and not worthy of emulation. This isn't meant as a challenge. The value of realizing directly the lack of self is not doubted. The quest is to have better insight regardinf integration.

[@didjesbydan]

In other words, to sum it up, is this really life-affirming? (especially when also considering that the idea is to avoid being reborn)

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks for the question Dan, it's an interesting one and I'll have a video out pretty soon that gets us toward an answer. So stay tuned! 🙂

[@didjesbydan]

Doug's Secular Dharma Looking forward to it! I should have mentioned Antoine Panaiote's book "Nietzsche and Buddhist Philosophy". In it, he treats this exact question. Unfortunately, I remember the question more than the answers he gave 😁 Need to go back and re-read it. Was very insightful.

[@markwarrensprawson]

I don't mean to seem pedantic. I've just always loved that bhikkhu means 'beggar".

[@DougsDharma]

True! 😄

[@DuongTran-mh7ci]

The self cannot disappear when you are still thinking. Because the “I am” is a product of the thinking process. As soon as something happens the thinking personalises it and says “I am this and that”. The Buddha saw this personalising step and became awakened. Because he saw how the mind works to produce the “I”, the fundamental ignorance. The Buddha woke up from the Dream of Existence, enlightened.

[@yongjiean9980]

Anatta is the heart of the Buddha's teachings. Yet it is very difficult to accept. It simply means there is nothing to be called a permanent and abiding self or entity in a constant flux of inconstancy, impermanence, changes. And to hold on to the idea of a self is suffering. This is the three universal characteristics. A Greek philosopher said "you do not go to the same river twice."

[@DougsDharma]

That’s right, Heraclitus seems to have been somewhat Buddhist in his outlook.

[@chuckitaway466]

Why is the word aggregate used?

[@DougsDharma]

Well it's a technical term in Buddhism with the idea that these are like parts of a pile of things that is always changing rather than a substantial person.

[@robertmartell7271]

Do you have workshops?

[@DougsDharma]

I have courses over at onlinedharma.org. If there is something you are looking for let me know, maybe I can put something together in the future. 🙂

[@mujaku]

He [thus] dwelling contemplating impermanence in those feelings, contemplating dispassion, contemplating cessation, contemplating renunciation, does not grasp at anything in the world, and not grasping he is not perturbed, not being perturbed he attains utter nibbana in his very self (paccattaññeva parinibbāyati). He knows ‘Destroyed is birth, lived is the holy life, done is what was to be done, there will be no more of thus-conditioned existence. - M. i. 255-256

[@calvinowens9404]

If you do not have a self... who or what is reading this text?

[@DougsDharma]

The Buddha never said we don't have a self. That would be very strange. However what is literally reading this text is a causally connected series of mental and physical events.

[@calvinowens9404]

@@DougsDharma Hmm... Although I have practiced Buddhist meditation and mindfulness for many years, I have never experienced my awareness as multiplicity, only a singularity.

[@CellVidsRBoring]

Would you be interested in doing a video about the Buddhist view on psychopaths? I was confounded in my practice on how to view someone like Jeffrey Dahmer as basically good or ignorant. Perhaps this is outside the scope of the channel but I found it difficult to address.

[@DougsDharma]

It's an interesting idea for a video SpaceCaptain. I don't feel I know enough about psychopathy to do it justice right now. I'll keep it in mind for the future though.

[@CellVidsRBoring]

@@DougsDharma Awesome because I've found in my experience that individuals like Jeffery Dahmer pose a great challenge to ideas such as basic goodness and ideas such as the jewel of the mind.

[@DougsDharma]

Ah yes. The notion that we are inherently good comes from later Buddhism, and from one or two metaphors in the early tradition. But basically we are neither good nor bad, but instead have both tendencies within us. Some have more of one or the other. Traditionally, we are to have compassion for those who are really bad, since they will experience terrible karma. From a secular perspective all we can say is that some people seem not to be as kind or compassionate, perhaps because their brains and minds are too involved in greed, hatred, and delusion to escape. It's a bad life either way.

[@CellVidsRBoring]

@@DougsDharma Thanks so much. To recognize the variety of human moralness as a brute fact helps address the idea of basic goodness. I appreciate the older perspective more! I have been learning a lot from the Shambhala tradition but some combination with the Theravada school sounds more accurate.

[@Octoberfurst]

@@CellVidsRBoring People who are psychopaths have something wrong with their brain. They can't empathize with others. So, to me at least, it does not go against the idea of humans having a basic goodness. This may be a poor analogy but we are born to be able to see but some children are born blind through no fault of their own. This does not mean there is a problem with the idea of vision.

[@pedestrian_0]

If I could pinpoint where I'm at in this journey of enlightenment, I'd say nowhere. 'I' never becomes enlightened, 'I' is just a thought that seems to capture the whole space of awareness when it arises. The feeling of 'I' is impossible to get rid of if you're born in a culture where you are implicated. The one who is experiencing these words as they're being typed has the recognition that none of what is appearing is for anyone. What's left is the space in which buddha, and 'I' appear in. What strikes me odd is the idea of reincarnation, in what sense does this moment give the idea that there is such a thing as being reborn in another body until there is enlightenment? This sounds like the ego trying to explain what this is, truthfully no words can describe what this moment is.

[@kmiller36]

🙏🏻

[@DougsDharma]

🙏🙂

[@sriramsriram1152]

Can u make a video how Shankara differs from Buddha?

[@DougsDharma]

Shankara is quite a later teacher. I have considered doing a video on how early Buddhism differs from Advaita Vedanta and related teachings, but it becomes a BIG project, too big for a single video. We'll see. 🙂

[@danmantena4676]

Thanks Doug! Do you do anything specific to cultivate the practice of seeing the arising and passing of the five aggregates throughout the day? I notice during the afternoons at work my energy and desire for this practice wanes and i start identifying easily to feelings and stories.

[@DougsDharma]

That's a big question Dan. The easiest answer is mindfulness meditation: just sit with open awareness and pay attention to what arises and passes. But yes, there will be times when our energy flags and we need to take a rest or something. That's OK too. The work demands on the life of a householder mean that there is going to be a limited amount of time they can spend on formal practice of one sort or another.

[@primatejames]

I understand myself as an emergent phenomena.

[@DougsDharma]

Perhaps so Kranky, a concept that emerges from the phenomena of life.

[@primatejames]

@@DougsDharma I think the vagueness of what one considers a self to be may be in play? I view myself as though,not an independent from the universe entity, but much more of an individual than what is the Buddhist might indicate.Yes I've heard the explanations (your cells are not the same as they once were etc) idk........ I'm not convinced of the philosophy of"We're not really what we thought we were."

[@user-ki3eo9qu4r]

❤❤❤❤

[@DougsDharma]

🙏🙏🙏🙏🙂

[@tedulinski6509]

Sadu, sadu, sadu

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@sonamtshering194]

Guess intellectual understanding or too much intellectualization can be an obstacle towards awakening

[@DougsDharma]

Intellectualism can become a problem if we cling to it. I think in Khemaka's case it wasn't that he was intellectualizing too much as that his path hadn't yet matured. He knew there was a problem but couldn't find his way through the problem easily.

[@SHurd-rc2go]

My Buddhism practice goes back to my first teacher, Alan Watts; books and tapes. Vipassana from early '80's with Jack Kornfield, before Spirit Rock. Never figured out no self. It IS a practice! Thank you. Subbed.

[@DougsDharma]

You're very welcome S. Hurd, thanks for watching and subscribing! 🙏

[@anatta2095]

Nice video Doug, although i disagree with you on one point. I dont think those you would call "awakened" believe in non self. From what i gather they're free from all beliefs and rather embody non-self by being.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks for your thoughts anatta. In the early tradition awakened arahants display all kinds of beliefs. Indeed, the Buddha himself as the paradigmatic arahant expressed many, many beliefs in hundreds of different suttas. To be "free of beliefs" in the sense of the early texts doesn't mean to have no beliefs. It means not to identify oneself either personally or emotionally with beliefs. Indeed, if one truly accepts non-self, one cannot identify oneself with anything. One simply "sees things as they really are."

[@mael-strom9707]

@@DougsDharma What the Buddha was alluding to is that all the aggregates are empty and have no physical location ...shunyata or emptiness of essence or no inherent self nature.

[@beritbranch2436]

The Inquisition "What a Show, the Inquisition, Here we go"

[@mael-strom9707]

Khemaka was alluding to essence of true self, which can only be pointed to. Not this body am I, this body is not the true self of me.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks for your thoughts Mael-Strom.

[@mindfulkayaker7737]

Then the concept of Non self and the concept of Self in Advaita Vedanta a Are in essence The same, we are neither the body nor the mind

[@middlewayers]

I think Lord Buddha taught non self so that people don't grasp at form Feeling perceptions.. because whatever Perception we consider as self we tend to grasp it and Don't let it go.. The purpose of teaching non self was different than how we interpret it now.. nowadays we are trying to see it more scientifically.

[@DougsDharma]

Maybe so, I think many of us look at it from a scientific angle is because it fits so well with how we understand the mind to work.

[@middlewayers]

@@DougsDharma yeah true..but i dont think Lord Buddha meant it how we interpret it today... Non Self was taught so that medicants don't consider any perception as self because if you consider any perception as self then you tend to grasp it.. That is why Non Self was taught in relation with the five Grasping Aggregates.

[@DougsDharma]

Oh for sure. The Buddha wasn't teaching science, that would be anachronistic. He was teaching about life and experience.

[@markdeegan7268]

Could you seperate self from ego? And see the Buddha trying to do the same? Whereas the self can be real but indescribable thru words and ego is illusion.

[@DougsDharma]

This may be one way to look at it, but I don't think it quite captures what the Buddha wanted to say. The self is a kind of conceptual construct for the Buddha.

[@raresmircea]

Doug i highly recommend this essay on the nature of self. This blog contains articles written by well read folks that are working in cognitive science and artificial intelligence, so the perspective, wording and the examples used would be refreshing for some. phantomself.org/the-illusion-of-survival/

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks for that rares! Yes, Derek Parfit was a wonderful thinker about topics in self identity. I mentioned his work quite prominently in my prior video about non-self in Buddhism: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYS9m36Bqtt7e7M

[@raresmircea]

@@DougsDharma Watched that, thanks! Regarding the same subject, there's an essay that's pursuing the identity conundrum with respect to other important aspects of human life. Give it a look, it's a fast read, written in plain language. If you do read it and you disagree with certain aspects i'd appreciate a very schematic reply. medium.com/@rares_mircea_82/is-it-possible-for-us-to-become-immortal-with-the-help-of-science-3934df78ffa8

[@AngelRPuente]

Hi Doug, I've just discovered your channel and Secular Buddhism; great information and presentation. As a long time practitioner and avid reader I am always surprised by the points of view on this subject of non-self. Depending on the source you will get either a otherworldly impossible to attain, for the privileged, or a nothing special, for the common man view. I just read an article by Jack Kornfield that appeared in the Inquiring Mind magazine www.inquiringmind.com/article/2701_w_kornfield-enlightenments/, in it he speaks of asking three different teachers about enlightenment and getting three different answers. I personally resonate with the one that defines it as a "simple yet profound shift of identity from the myriad, ever-changing conditioned states to the unconditioned consciousness-the awareness which knows them all" . Following the story you present, I think of this in a more vulgar way. A jump from "what a smell !" to "so, it smells".

[@DougsDharma]

Ha! Yes, thanks for that Puente Tai Chi. 🙏

[@TODDZEN]

No-Self means no permanent eternal self. Every healthy person has a sense of self. Practicing Buddhism to get rid of a self is foolish. Better to have no concept of Self or Non Self.

[@DougsDharma]

Right, I think that's a pretty good way of understanding it.

[@vimalkirti4845]

- no-self means no-self now - self also include ego (not healthy) - Buddhism warns about the sufferings of self - the average person is self and needs to learn

[@bassmonk2920]

I prefer the story of the garlic kept in the jar instead of the shit stained underwear......but thanks anyway

[@alankuntz6494]

You can't talk about no self unless you're using the intellect. Getting out at deeper? The best you can do is ponder it , and it takes a mind to do that. Seems that this whole no self teaching is an Upaya... a skillful means way to deconstruct a self that over identifies to it's sad songs and stories, attachments of aversions, aggregate cluster of mind streaming habits.

[@DougsDharma]

Sure Alan, it takes a very strong intellect to understand no-self; some of our greatest thinkers have realized it, including the Buddha, David Hume, and most recently Derek Parfit.

[@monlin9429]

it is not complicated at all. Why did the buddha say no self ?. No one in this world nowadays is able to understand except some people in Cambodia because Mr Khem Veasna , who is the greatest man, can understand the teaching of the buddha. We are not our bodies but our mind. So what is mind ? mind is force, force is not ours but it belongs to nature. I can't expand more why I say like that. Sir if you want to understand you can travel to Cambodia to meet Mr Khem Veansa in person, he'll explain you more details about no self or you can wait for him, if someday he explain in english in his KZbin. I am not lying to you, I swear to god.

[@lilapollox]

Ah, the ever permeating dookie stain of the Self.

[@sozonewa385]

..

[@AtlasandLiberty]

The purpose of a soul's creation by the Source of ALL... IS ... for that Soul to Love, thereby becoming identical to the Source of ALL. Once that condition is achieved....Each Soul will request the creation of a piece of their soul become alive...that new soul is watched by the larger Soul...As a result, there is no permanent leaving the material world. The personal God is the Larger Soul (an intelligence who is identical in Love to the Source of ALL) who watches you through all rebirths....and so and so infinity. So there is a personal God and rebirth at some level is forever & ever.....infinity

[@vimalkirti4845]

- try to widen your scope - who really knows anything ?

[@gabrielleangelica1977]

Doug, did you ever think of doing a live chat? 🎐

[@DougsDharma]

I have considered it, I'm not really sure about how to go about it, but maybe someday if I can figure it out!