Non-self - a unique teaching of the Buddha | Ajahn Brahmali | 21-11-2014

Ajahn Brahmali offers a practical approach to understanding the Buddha's teaching of non-self, and Ajahn explains how to use this understanding in our Buddhist practice.
Please support the BSWA in making teachings available for free online via Patreon: / buddhistsocietywa
Copyright Buddhist Society of Western Australia
www.bswa.org

[@dvparrish1]

The world would be better if our children learned this early.

[@angelcasas1997]

How fortunate the people of western Australia are to have such inspiring and easy to understand Ajahn such as Ajahn Brahmali.

[@Buddhist_Philosopher]

Indeed.

[@osandawijeratne6237]

I know you did this talk a while back but I am still very grateful that you did, as I use it as a reference guide as I grapple with this concept of non self. Many thanks venerable sir.

[@Blair62]

Thank you Ajahn. Your talks are like finding a diamond in the gravel pit. May this be your final rebirth Venerable Sir.

[@lordbyron3603]

When I first started to listen to Ajahn Brahmali, I found it difficult to stay focus on what was being said because of the way he talks, his mannerisms in his delivery. I would tune out. BUT not this time. This is my 6th time listening to him and I finally got him. I am now able to listen, able to follow what he is saying. No longer do I get disinterested, or "bored". Ajahn Brahm has been my default teacher, my "go to" Master. But now I think, Ajahn Brahmali can fill that shoe for me. Thank you for posting.

[@HuiChyr]

Me too. I had problem with his accent. But he spoke the essence of Buddhism so well. He is a good teacher.

[@Skyelement84K]

He's one of my favorites....

[@wiwimacher5383]

hearing a buddhist monk say scallywag was one of the best experiences of my life so far.

[@anacuji2444]

I have listened to this talk about 3 times now, and each time I receive something new. Thank you for your teaching.

[@FullpeaceOrg]

Very interesting talk by Ajahn Brahmali on non self, or Anatta.

[@DavidAang]

Ajahn Brahmali's talks are becoming the best talks on this channel! This is what the 'Talk' should be like! Namaste _/\_

[@googleuser3560]

Hi

[@SandraLovesSun]

Hmmm...sounds like a comparison...hmmmmm

[@rodneyhatch56]

@@SandraLovesSun Comparisons are valid.

[@beansprout7198]

Wow this is the most beautiful, profound, life changing speech I have ever listened to. Thank you so much 💚

[@ivanmorgan298]

Thank you ajahn brahmali for such a wonderful talk

[@harrymcnicholas9468]

He speaks from a Thervada point of view. In Mahayana the term used is Sunyatta or emptiness. There is nothing permenant. Seems like cutting straws but there is a difference.

[@lordbyron3603]

This is my 8th time listening to this teaching. And it sinks into the very core of my being and I see clearer. Thank you Ajahn. I will put this to practice. The Buddha’s teaching is my refuge. Sadhu!

[@nightfears3005]

Indeed the idea of anatta can not be traced back to anywhere else in the world.

[@Prince-of-Whales666]

Thank you, you explain things really well. And I love your accent! 🤗

[@jamil1418]

thank you ajahn brahmali , this is thanks to people like you that i began to get interested in buddhism and that i began to understand this concept of non self which is amazing. I am not enough grateful so i this time take time to thank you .

[@mikecee7064]

Great talk and thank you Ajahn Brahmali! I think I am starting to peel away the onion and getting deeper into meditation because what you said makes total sense to me. :) letting go and happiness are definitely positively correlated.

[@nathanhussey9215]

Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu! Sir

[@MK-gn1nz]

Buddha was right. There is no self as an entity. But rather life is a series of (like "digital frames") experiences.

[@joannaong5408]

Looking forward to listen to more buddhist teachings

[@NutnRoll]

This is a life changing video. More people should see it. Please share!

[@southernfrechman]

A very inspiring talk ... thanks Ajahn and BSWA Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu .

[@gwynethbarlow7514]

Brilliant talks from Ajahn Bramhili...Learning much more about myself as a result of these informative and well explained talks. Thank you.

[@mickeygroberts]

Thank you for this teaching. I really enjoy your talks.

[@darlacarlock9668]

ÑbbnbnMickey h

[@francoaustralien]

Very profound and insightful lecture: big thank you, Bhante

[@moonflower8936]

Thank you, Ajahn Brahmali 🙏

[@vladimirkrisnov4322]

Very honest explainaton on teaching of Buddha by Ajahn, correct or not, is another issue. I dont have to go somewhere else.

[@vladimirkrisnov4322]

@@jqwerty4587 correct, only time will tell.

[@quantumbilly5091]

What a great voice. Awesome talk. Radio Voice.

[@annen2714]

Very interesting. Thank you Ajahn Brahmali.

[@kaiserislamtao]

I love hear it again and again.

[@cynthialoza7155]

Thank you for the wisdom Ajahn..

[@michaelh2935]

Interesting, his answer to the first question on the discontinuity of awareness is very much in line with what Shantideva says in chapter 9 of the Bodhicaryavatara. I am from a zen background but find these dhamma talks indispensable.

[@buddhistbilly3602]

I'm shattered, stunned. There is nothing there. I can't resolve this...I can't see how this is supposed to be "wonderful". But "I" will. "I" must. "I" will get there. Thank you Ajahn Brahmali. Thank You Ajahn Brahm.

[@youarewhatyourelookingfor4496]

I saved this talk for intermittent review. Very good talk

[@chusakthoskul9511]

Thank you ajahn Brahmali for the teaching. -/\-

[@shanthawelgamage]

I like this monk. He talks sense. May he live long and achieve his goal

[@KeyboardPlaysGames]

Interesting him saying "the passive observer" I often see Hindus witness consciousness attacked, but when we get rid of the vernacular semantics, I believe this is what they are also getting at.

[@maipham4766]

I really love your speeches, thank you so much

[@mtjosvold]

I (haha, I) had heard that comparing yourself as worse or equal was a conceit. Just thinking about it a few days ago, confused. You clarified that, and more. thanks

[@elkeemerald]

I find it useful to think of the meaning of 'conceit' as 'untruth'

[@amandhicaldera4704]

What an amazing sermon. Thank you.

[@guy25081948]

Just listened to the Dhamma talk about 2 years later, thank you Ajahn Brahmali. Isn't there a witnessing continuïty behind all the experiences, an observer, or even a guide, that exposes the experiences for us? And isn't this guide, should he or she or it exist, what we commonly call the spirit?

[@harrymcnicholas9468]

Sorry no ghost in the machine. You are a composite being. I is an illusion.

[@CR-wb3en]

thank you

[@BAZhompa]

The second question was very insightful. What is aware of the impermanence of the six senses or states of awareness? What gives us the sense of subjectivity why do we feel what’s it’s like to be a particular self rather than just a scattered ever changing kaleidoscope of disassociated states? Why is consciousness unified or strung together coherently at all? Being aware of anything produces a sense of self because of its subjective nature. How does Buddhism answer this?

[@AirSandFire]

I have the unorthodox view that what the buddha taught with "nonself" is the same as what is taught in the Upanishads as the "Self". It seems opposite yet it's the same thing, stated via negativa.

[@allenmorgan4309]

I am listening to this talk for,the second time and I am beginning,to relate to,what he is saying. I have mental issues and from myboen experience,I,have realised that I have very little,control in my life if any at all so now my question is what do I do? Do I just watch my life,go down the tubes and just be a passive observer? Or do I get back into the rat race and keep running on the wheel going nowhere? This is a hard teaching for me because,I have been living in a one room apartment for years alone with mental issues and,I do,get angry and it,is hard for,me to accept being alone all the time. It is hard to think of living my life out alone,in a little room.

[@589139chhotu]

All of spirituality is just for one sake, so that we do not add stories to reality and accept reality exactly for what it is . For example Instead of cribbing about the wretched weather. All of spirituality is just for one sake, so that we do not add stories to reality and accept reality exactly for what it is . For All of spirituality is just for one sake, so that we do not add stories to reality and accept reality exactly for what it is . For example life would be simpler if instead of cribbing about the wretched weather, one would simply say, it is raining. Similarly instead of saying that I live in a one room apartment and my life is going down the tube, it would be so much simpler and truer if you say this.. There is just a of me that wants to experience a multi room apartment. With these understanding and insight , don't worry, the effort you put in your work will remain the same but your life would be simpler and lighter and rational.

[@petrasant5495]

Allen Morgan, I hope your life changes for the better Allen. We all have obstacles and struggles to overcome in our lives. God Bless you.

[@spiderjump]

Repent of your sins and believe onto Jesus Christ.

[@moniniekmet6]

Thanks so much teacher. This help easing ego mind.

[@Number-id8ld]

Top tip: Watch this at 0.75 or 0.5 playback speed

[@pussmun08]

The comparison to a car which gets all its parts changed made me think about blueprints. The car may still look and function exactly the same because of its blueprint. Our individual blueprint is the DNA. So while all the cells in the human body may have been replaced after some time, still the blueprint is left and unchanged. What is your approach to this? Wouldn't it be possible that the sense of self could correspond to this unique, unchanging DNA?Thank you so much for a great talk and for your positive energy.

[@faujidoc1]

Even DNA changes with time..... genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news91 /|\

[@omniagenedy7410]

Ajahn is saying that the car was once a beetle car now it is a Mercedes car after changing all its parts, similarly the self is continously changing and its a result of conditions and causes hence there is no self.. But the change from beetle car to Mercedes car doesn't negate the fact that it is car in its essence or my old self changing into a new self doesn't negate the essence of that is me. I don't if i get this right but would like more elaboration on this.

[@RCVivek-ql3we]

Very nice and very clear ,tanks

[@thudo5587]

Namo Tassa bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa

[@galaxymetta5974]

We use the self as a raft to cross the river. After crossing, we don't need the self or the raft anymore. Cheers.

[@miiigoreng]

I listen to his talks, for going into sleep

[@karolfrench5816]

THANKYOU 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼

[@gosianowak4139]

Even we are continuation of our ancestors..each of us is unique. Even we change.

[@ClaudioJPizarroHidalgo]

Venerable, I understand your point; however, it would be necessary to define more accurately concepts such as self, psyche, I, identity... or at least get agree how we do define them; otherwise, we will be using the same concepts but with different meanings for each of us. To me identity is different to self and different to mind and different to personality. So, when you are using those concepts as if they were the same or similar, communication of ideas got opaque. I would ask you what would be the requirements to suspect that there is spirit or atma. or something essential in the human being and if those requirements have some possibilities to do exist. (I just realized these speech is from 2014; may be it will not be read). dd

[@manueldejesusulloa6410]

3 different things, the self is what we call, I , me , myself which is ego, ego is not me, not you. It is it what you believe you are so the practice is been non self every time we think that we are thinking identified with ourselves, actually the self is very tricky word in Buddhism like a lot other ones... I hope make more sense to you.

[@waseemiqbal7]

Thanks for elaborating on the concept of non-self, although it is of course not unique to Buddhism. The same in Sufism for instance, is called FANAA, and it is also present in other mystical systems.

[@harrymcnicholas9468]

If it were not, likely it would not be true.

[@dassanajayalath8478]

🙏 🙏

[@TomeRodrigo]

Talk-e, about-e, nonself-e, budhism-e, experience-e, life-e, what's going on with his speech?

[@redbear4027]

Academics and Buddhists... two sides of the " SOMENOTHING" coin.

[@Himself-Seven]

Dear Ajahn Brahmali, In depression, craving is gone. Then, can it be understood as a form of no-self?

[@calculusmetal]

No. Depression is caused by delusion, aversion and greed. It is a strong feeling of suffering, caused by a craving for experience to be significantly different to what it is, but no right view/intention/action...effort/mindfulness/concentration is being progressed. Also, depression is self identification with the feeling. In other words, depression is the strongest craving of the self to update it's wrong view.

[@ghormax]

I fully agree with the message and that this is the path to happiness. However, maybe I am a bit skeptical about how to achieve technical/societal progress if people refuse the delusions of the world. In fact, I think human suffering made today's world because people believed in control, were conceited, and thus sought to change things. Then are those technologies bad because they emerged from delusions?

[@SanKissJuice]

What is going through rebirth/reincarnation if there is no self/no soul? I am a Buddhist but I am not sure I understand this completely.

[@nikhilamga5631]

@@Rainasuan2023 I wonder if it includes imperience of the Absolute Unborn Self of Ramana Maharshi is also impermanent. 😌

[@patrickpham7973]

Self and non self both are rights.

[@naropaananda6723]

I enjoy the discourses you offer, however there is one question I must ask, and perhaps there is a relative answer. "What is the purpose of Meditation and what is it's outcome or realisation? Metta Naropa.

[@harrymcnicholas9468]

Calm the mind. Enlightenment.

[@MundaSquire]

@@harrymcnicholas9468 To see things as they are via meditation. If you do see things as they really are--that there is non-self, all changes constantly, and we suffer when we cling to this identity view by attachment, then you can end the clinging that is defined in the second Noble Truth. The clinging that arises out of our ignorance, our wrong view about what is really going on. Meditation is method (Samadhi and Vipassana) to gain insight into to this and thus do away with the clinging that arises out of our whole misunderstanding.

[@thisguy7633]

The "external world" is inside your head.

[@harrymcnicholas9468]

Well be careful that the external world does not hit youy alongside that head. You live in both. External and internal.

[@Buddhist_Philosopher]

The Middle Way is free from the extremes.

[@stanbimi]

Chinese subtitle is available on this talk. 這視頻有中文字幕

[@bodhi9464]

sadhu sadhu sadhu ☮️🇦🇺

[@rodneyhatch56]

This is the interface, the coalface, the intersection of Western secular, pluralistic enlightenment and ancient, original, Forest Tradition Buddhist enlightenment. Diamonds are being mined here. Become the Path. The obstacle is the Path. You are the obstacle. Unburden. Enlighten.

[@SandraLovesSun]

I do get it, but I do struggle with not thinking I am better than those people that suck at social etiquette. The ones that have no consideration for anybody else.

[@Buddhist_Philosopher]

We are in the Samsara along with them. It's just that our ignorant mind manifest in different ways. They also feel better than the rest, that's why the care only for themselves. You feel better than them, that's why you do things good for others. There's a conceit in that motivation, it's not purely altruistic. Forgett what others do or not do, be mindful of your conduct and motivation.

[@isabellaflynn6572]

Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu❤️

[@cadearcher8887]

Thank you. I don’t feel like her question about awareness was answered. When all things fall away in the experience of no-self who or what is experiencing this?

[@heathwilliams8375]

If you would like to know what the person who asked that question thinks you should look for a book called "Analytic Buddhism." Miri is the author!

[@isaacgreenough3448]

Self and none self I think Buddha said it's both.... choose carefully between the two ❤

[@hanrajakaruna5828]

Beautiful

[@PhilLevering]

Is not one self when the mind ,body and soul becoune one

[@harrymcnicholas9468]

Soul is an illusion. Show us your soul?

[@Buddhist_Philosopher]

That"s plane fantasy.

[@tayrowell]

I think there is a temporary self and an actor who can act selfishly and spread that karmic effect in the world. We also carry our self identification with us, for some time. Non-self to me means there is no inherent self. It's transitory. It dissipates over time. I think having no soul is a key Buddhist differentiator though. No self is both a conceptual tool to reduce attachment and suffering and a reality as life changes

[@lmansur1000]

Milly's question was about awareness itself and what is that?

[@Buddhist_Philosopher]

The you find it in another category of teachings.

[@frederickstewart6217]

Magic happens when you are none with the universe. ☺

[@cosplay8561]

im a bit confussed at times cause its like im still in the world, but i feel somewhat seperated from it. like i cant tell if im real or not. its as though everything i thaught i knew, then it dropped away, but some of the ego is still sticking around making it difficult to to pass on through the janas. i feel as though ive tasted some great state of no self, but still partly the self, or still part of the world itself but from a disconnected experience of how many or most people experience or see reality. its like im in both material being, and metaphysical, so its difficult the relate to where other's minds might be precieving religion, the world, its like there is a thinking mind absense of allot of the mind's identity.

[@mmmmtoastyyyy]

"You" had "me" at "scallywags."

[@karlinguk]

To say 'non self' = no self, I cannot accept At this time and after my own introspect research, I sense this: THIS BODY WITH A NAME, A IDENTITY, MIND, EGO, SENSES, THINKING, EXPERIENCING AND GATHERING MEMORIES ETC ETC IS NOT THE REAL I, REAL SELF, THE REAL UNIVERAL UNKNOWN AND NEAR IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPREHEND ESSENCE. Now, whether that 'I' is changing or unchanging, I cannot say. But foes it really matter anyway? WHETHER IT BE PERMANENT UNCHANGING OR NOT, I SENSE IT IS THE OBSERVER THAT WE DON'T RECOGNISE IS THE REAL 'SELF' BECAUSE WE ARE SO SO ATTACHED AND ABSORBED BY OUR PERSONALITY, SENSE OF SELF, WHICH IS REALLY 'NOT SELF', BUT THAT EXPERIENCES BIRTH, AGING, SICKNESS AND DEATH

[@nikhilamga5631]

I would like to add that without imperience of the UNBORN ABSOLUTE UNIVERSAL SELF, can one imperience the non-self of Gautam, the Buddha?

[@Buddhist_Philosopher]

Your introspective research is wrong. You couldn't possible to point out some inherent essence and knowing if is permanent or impermanent. If it's permanent it has to be solid and independent, which violates the reality of Dependent Origination, if its impermanent, is interdependent, empty and is Not self.

[@sumanasaha8535]

If there is no self then who undergoes different lives(reincarnation)ie janmantor which is accepted in Budhdhism And believed that Budhdha homself Undergone several lives

[@Buddhist_Philosopher]

Nobody. We are just the movement of karma. Study the *Twelve Links of Dependent of Origination.*

[@houvenigge]

The example "a car where each part has been changed over the years" seems to be convincing. But, take for example an artwork. If every stone of the Gothic Cathedral in Chartres is changed, is it still the Gothic Cathedral of Chartres? I would say, yes, if it's done propery! - The difference is that a car is a mass product, whereas an artwork is something more unique. If you see the self as something like a mass product (rather than an artwork), then it's no surprise that you will arrive at the result "no identity" in the end....

[@harrymcnicholas9468]

Would it no? You would then call it the restoration of the Gothic Cathredral. We cannot stop change.

[@Buddhist_Philosopher]

All compunded things changes, no matter if they are unique or not. Even the evaluation the people do on that artwork changes.

[@Ninurtha1]

Where is Ajahn Brahm?

[@yroy4457]

sadhu sadhu sadhu

[@Bigvader]

If there is no self, who is that is being kind, compassionate, and altruistic?

[@Buddhist_Philosopher]

Nobody. Kindness, compassion, altruism, is just the true pristine nature of the mind. Just like the sun works giving light and heat without any self.

[@michaelascheffler4229]

💚

[@cpadman1943]

If awareness ( consciousness) is constantly changing, who is experiencing that ? Who is the experiencer ? Of course your body and mind are constantly changing, but you need an everlasting consciousness to be aware of that. In deep sleep who is the witness since your body and mind are not functioning and you are not dead, you wake up the next day and who was the experiencer of that deep sleep? How do you know that you were the same person during your childhood and old age since your body and mind have completely changed? That witness is the atman , that everlasting, eternal atman or soul along with your subtle mind is what passes from death to rebirth. Once the karma is finished , there is no more rebirth.

[@1965simonfellows]

Fast 5 days a month and daily 18 plus hours,water only, walk daily 1 hour, cold showers, sunshine, high fat died, prog muscle relaxation, lift some heavy things.The ketones fuelling heart and brain 25% more effic than glucose and then one"ll forget such genuinely silly questions.The elevated stress profiles of such brains are easily sorted if ones lucky enough to live in the West and not have some genetically inherited conditions or addictions.The Buddha was a stress reduction teacher, perhaps the first and hats off to him but ref what we know today the teachings are profoundly uninformed, profoundly.If one wants a quiet brain adopt practises that were laid down by h-g's 1-200, 000 yrs ago not some geezer in India 2500 yrs ago, not even yesterday in histoire naturale.Good luck and god health too.

[@jrwilliam3742]

The experiencer is the experience itself. Atman is illusion

[@harrymcnicholas9468]

There is no who. There is just consciousness. Consciousness. is constantly changing. Where di you get the idea that in deep sleep your body and mind are not functioning? You would be considered dead. Again there is no who. Show me this who?

[@Buddhist_Philosopher]

The especto of *Clarity* of the mind. This teachngs is not present in the Theravada tradition

[@Buddhist_Philosopher]

@@jrwilliam3742 That would be like saying that sword cuts itself or a that candle enlightened to itself. The minds needs a factor of recognition.

[@thudo5587]

🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

[@davidknight7933]

🙏🏻

[@amidawang]

sādhu

[@michaelryanmccoy]

At birth, the part of your brain that controls your most human abilities - the neocortex - came fully equipped with 100 billion neurons. These same neurons have lasted throughout the years and still power your thoughts today. Your neurons are as old as you are and will last you for the rest of your life. They don’t divide, and there’s no turnover.

[@kimbirch1202]

Is seeing the emptiness of our belief in an objectively existing world, the same as seeing no self ?

[@Buddhist_Philosopher]

No. The first is a concept the second is a direct recognition.

[@kimbirch1202]

@Buddhist Philosopher I disagree. The Buddha taught that all form is merely an appearance to our minds, and this is not a concept, but a truth realised by many. The false ego self identifies with form, including bodies, yet these are just false concepts, or beliefs. The ego self is one with its beliefs.

[@kimbirch1202]

@@Buddhist_Philosopher Perhaps you are not a Mahayana Buddhist , and therefore reject the teachings of Sunyata ??

[@Buddhist_Philosopher]

@@kimbirch1202 You asked for a belief, a belief is a type concept, but that's not the direct recognition of selflesness.

[@kimbirch1202]

@Buddhist Philosopher No, you misunderstand. I was talking about seeing the falseness, OF the belief, in a real, objectively - existing world, separate from the mind . According to Buddha, and Christ, this belief IS the ego. The world has no existence whatsoever, because it was made by the ego. No world, then no ego. Cause and effect are not separate.

[@TheStoicManVlog]

Ummm... I'm having a bit of a hard time grasping this... instead of self... let's call it atman... if there is no atman... no centralized "i"... what is it that reincarnates... because it's been my experience that behind all the mind activity there is a silent observer which i consider the "higher self" I imagine the mind and all of its contents will die with the body, all of my ideas and beliefs, my concepts and identifications, desires and fears... etc... and the self will move on... but if Buddhism does not believe in a separate self, then when the Buddha experienced all of his previous incarnations, does that not imply separateness? If this reality is a phenomenon and there is no concrete individual reality to anything, then who am I in relationship to anyone reading this, and if we are one in the same and I had a vision of all of my previous lives, would that vision also include YOUR LIFE? Or are your past lives and my past lives different, therefore making us separate beings with separate past lives?

[@NutnRoll]

We are the same in the sense that our minds work the same way, not that I am you or you are me. One iPhone and another iPhone work in the same way and have the same principle governing their mechanism.The Buddha said "But that which is called 'mind' and 'mentality' and 'consciousness' arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night", meaning that consciousness isn't one continuous stream, but one arises, continues for a while, ceases, and another arises. If you look at a tree, the consciousness that is observing the tree at this second isn't the same one as the one at the previous second. This is why there is no self, the core single thing that you can point at and define it "me". Then, rebirth isn't a core self or soul moving to the next body. What we mistakenly call "self" is but a product of dependent origination, a product of the law of cause and effect, not something that can exist by itself (dependent origination as mentioned in the video). Rebirth occurs because of the collaboration of multiple components, not just a soul or self floating out of the body and moving to another body. Check this site out www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/paticca_samuppaada.htm Paticcasamuppada explains the process of rebirth. Keep in mind that in Buddhism, rebirth is happening all the time, not just when you die. You are being reborn all the time because, as the Buddha said, "But that which is called 'mind' and 'mentality' and 'consciousness' arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night".

[@harrymcnicholas9468]

You are being misled a bit. Theravada stresses that when a person dies the consciousness is reborn or reincarnated into a new body. This is very low level thinking. There is nothing permanent. Your body and your mind are dying and being reborn again and again. This can only end when you become a Buddha. In other words, what happens to your body when it dies. Nobody knows and anyone telling they do know is a liar.

[@Buddhist_Philosopher]

It's the Karma. We our karmic beings. Study the *Twelve Links of Dependent Origination.*

[@DoodleDoo]

who is the person you're praying to in the end? doesn't look like buddha.

[@wazupsam]

Ven. Brahmali Pays respect to his teacher Ajhan Chan.

[@JosephCloutier]

Robert Green One who seeks the teachings of the "Buddhist" way truly does not "pray" as it would be recognized in a world religion. There is no "God" to pray to. One would meditate on thought, perception, acceptance, observance, breathing (as in life itself). It is through ones own understanding that one will achieve enlightenment. Peace. Namaste.

[@harrymcnicholas9468]

A Buddhist prayer is not petitionary like that of Christians. It is an acknowledgement of hope.

[@yiyiguxing]

this isnot what the Buddha taught as “not self”

[@chmd22]

He lost me at his response to the awareness question. Granted, he encouraged the audience to find for themselves, but his suggestion that awareness too is impermanent does not resonate with me at all.

[@Buddhist_Philosopher]

Because you still hold an eternalist view.

[@akhina4752]

Ajahn Brahmali is always rubbing his right eyes in many videos 2014 -2021 . 🤔

[@albarleta2361]

He is rubbing his right eye to have right view.

[@alfrednagy1237]

why do my comments not show up

[@HideyoshiKinoshita.]

Alfred Nagy they show up. hi

[@vladimirkrisnov4322]

This Anatma arise because Buddha initially identify himself with body and mind, which is not correct. Later Buddha distance himself from body and mind, that became Anatma. The basic real reason for Buddha to arrive at Anatma is to reject the concept of Father and divorce from Father . That is the own decision by Buddha, only Buddha should take responsibility. Other teachings of Buddha are awesome.

[@Buddhist_Philosopher]

Anatma does not arise from anything. Anatman is not a thing. It's just the empty nature of beings and reality.

[@vladimirkrisnov4322]

@@Buddhist_Philosopher The empty is really something right?

[@Buddhist_Philosopher]

@@vladimirkrisnov4322 No; emptyness is empty of itself. It's not a substance or essence. It just means that all phenomenon lacks of an inherent and independent essence.

[@marcusshan3553]

I'm sorry, but "absolute change" makes no philosophical sense. This would entail existential replacement. Meaning, existence is simply replaced wholesale from one moment to the next. Sure, this accomplishes the notion of "discontinuity," but it has the effect of making it impossible for even the illusion of continuity to arise. Just like the response to the question of "what is aware of absolute change." The answer provided is incoherent. If the awareness itself is changing, then there can in principle be no awareness of that change. Something has to remain the same in order for changed to be noticed, even by inference. That being said, even the insistence on inference is telling. One has no experiential or direct verification of these things? Relying on merely on inference is ultimately not good enough, since everybody makes inferences and has no way of absolutely verifying if they are correct. That being said, does this mean that one can have no awareness of nibbana and that nibbana is simply a result of inference? This is far less impressive than it is being made to seem.

[@davidbrainerd1520]

+Marcus Shan Buddha taught there is a self, like in Dhammapada chapter 12. These guys are making up a new religion and just calling it Buddhism.

[@marcusshan3553]

***** But momentariness precludes this. The claim made here is that *nothing* remains the same from one moment to the next. Saying that we need to "witness this experience with our awareness" is incoherent in relation to the idea of absolute change or momentariness. There is no awareness to "witness this."

[@marcusshan3553]

***** No need to simplify. If there's something you can explain that actually explains said contradiction, go ahead and state it. I'm sure I'll be able to follow.

[@fosterix555]

perfect remark

[@harrymcnicholas9468]

Continuity of what? You cannot accept change.

[@metafisicacibernetica]

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. Atta’sarana anan’n’asarana.------"Soul as a refuge with none other as refuge” DN 2.100 “Atta’ ca me so saranam gati ca” --------“The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto” Jatakapali 1441 Akkhakandam "Soul the refuge (Saran.am.attano)" DN 2.120 Jataka-2 #1341 “tattha atta’ va sarathi” ------“the Soul is Charioteer” The Buddhist term Anatman (Sanskrit), or Anatta (Pali) is an adjective in sutra used to refer to the nature of phenomena as being devoid of the Soul, that being the ontological and uncompounded subjective Self (atman) which is the “light (dipam), and only refuge” [DN 2.100]. Of the 662 occurrences of the term Anatta in the Nikayas, its usage is restricted to referring to 22 nouns (forms, feelings, perception, experiences, consciousness, the eye, eye-consciousness, desires, mentation, mental formations, ear, nose, tongue, body, lusts, things unreal, etc.), all phenomenal, as being Selfless (anatta). Contrary to countless many popular (=profane, or = consensus, from which the truth can ‘never be gathered’) books (as Buddhologist C.A.F. Davids has deemed them ‘miserable little books’) written outside the scope of Buddhist doctrine, there is no “Doctrine of anatta/anatman” mentioned anywhere in the sutras, rather anatta is used only to refer to impermanent things/phenomena as other than the Soul, to be anatta, or Self-less (an-atta). Specifically in sutra, anatta is used to describe the temporal and unreal (metaphysically so) nature of any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal, and temporal things, from macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter as pertains the physical body, the cosmos at large, including any and all mental machinations which are of the nature of arising and passing. Anatta in sutra is synonymous and interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanent); all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. Such as: “All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta.” It should be further noted that, in doctrine, that the only noun which is branded permanent (nicca), is obviously and logically so, the noun attan [Skt. Atman], such as passage (SN 1.169). 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.

[@Buddhist_Philosopher]

I think Shankara denyed Dependent Origination.

[@rodneyhatch56]

Eddie is not a problem. But there is a problem...

[@MundaSquire]

Is this the same Eddie from way back a number of years on the Buddhist Philosophy forum?