The Buddha's Argument for Non-self Through Impermanence: It's Strange!

[@DougsDharma]

🧡 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 🙂 📙 You can find my new book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook

[@AzimuthAviation]

Doug, your efforts as a philosopher and Buddhist practitioner are a wonderful resource to gain a greater understanding of the Dhamma beyond simply living it. All the Best!!!

[@DougsDharma]

My pleasure Roy, glad you are enjoying the videos!

[@bam111965]

Thank you. It is useful to see the Upanishad references for understanding the context of the Buddha's teaching. Where the Upanishads point people to the Brahman state as the highest attainment and the pure self, original Buddhism points past this state by revealing the fundamental flaw in the Brahman's view. This "perfect self" is itself also impermanent, suffering, and not actually a self, because all of the things that go into making up even a perfect self are themselves impermanent. To those seeking Brahman, this would have been extremely profound because the clear implication is that all bodies, past, present, and future, are also impermanent - which means the body of Brahman too is impermanent. This would have been a mind-blowing idea to them. For those who believe more in permanent soul trapped within an impermanent body, or bodies, this logical argument does not satisfy them because they can easily admit none of the five aggregates are their true self, while maintaining the view that there is something else within them which is their "true self." For these people, a slightly different process of elimination can lead to the same conclusion. For those with this belief system, they must first delve deeply into what they believe about the nature of this soul. Then, looking closely at each aspect of that nature, each in turn will also be found to be impermanent, suffering, and not truly a self. In reality, the self that suffers does not exist in any permanent way and this is observable.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes exactly Brian. Thanks!

[@yhseow]

Well explained. The Buddha declared that sense faculties and objects are all that existed. Many postulated theories besides these two but have no evidence to support them.

[@bam111965]

@@mahakalabhairava9950 I know nothing about jiva

[@Antonio-uc7vn]

@@bam111965 modifications ( rebirth , decay , birth , etc ) of Prakriti (nature ) does not effect Brahman , it remains constant , unaffected by it Individual egoistical self does , We must eliminate ego , desire to attain higher Brahman state Some people like you sir are quite confused about individual ego self and Brahman the absolute self which is the goal , Brahman is beyond senses , birth and death , and thoughts .

[@Antonio-uc7vn]

@@marciestoddard730 yeah man.

[@5piles]

the upanishad self is the subtlest and most accurate apprehension of oneself. its what perfect minds with perfect single-pointed concentration establish empirically, clearly, and directly. the unique insight of the buddha is in his catching and then explaining that there is still an extremely specific cognitive distortion that all minds are born with and is which is still present in perfect minds beyond cognitive distortions. thus, a perfect mind that is free from all error and obscuration cuts thru to the hidden, subtlest, and final remaining cognitive defect. one becomes enlightened, something fundamentally different than us and effortlessly utterly beyond suffering

[@Antonio-uc7vn]

Elaborate sir .

[@rahulratan0]

Buddham Sharanam Gachchhami 🙏🙏

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@MundaSquire]

Doug, this is such an important talk by you, and you so clearly explicate the Buddha's meaning. Thank you so much for this talk. It's very insightful for me.

[@DougsDharma]

My pleasure, Munda. Glad you found it helpful. 🙏

[@stephenrizzo]

Thank you Doug for a very informative video. The context helps shed light on the subject.

[@DougsDharma]

My pleasure, Dread.

[@yhseow]

Thanks for another clarification on this sermon. It may be postulated that Atman has the following characteristics: 1} Eternal 2) Pure 3) Perfect control over body and mind 4) Highest bliss

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, I think that's right.

[@Antonio-uc7vn]

You must control body and mind Eliminate individual ego and control senses to attain this state

[@Sawo-500]

Buddha , Dhamma Bless you ! 🙏

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@Anthony_February]

When I read the Dhammapada it said “through earnest effort Indira became lord of the gods” - I didn’t understand this statement until I read the upanishads and realized that was the source of the story being referenced. For a while I thought of the Dhammapada as almost an extension of the Upanishads but later considered the fact that the Buddha was talking to the people of his day and in India where his statement concerning tenacity was bolstered by his reference to a commonly known story. Now I often think about the fact, a fact that gets lost on many, that much of what we know about the buddhas teachings is based on things he told people and that he would speak to people as they were and he taught not necessarily as a solid stationary position but one that molds and changes to aid the listener.

[@DougsDharma]

That's right, much scholarship nowadays is helping trace such ideas.

[@cyberista]

Doh! You've just helped me see the connection between Brahma and the Brahma-Viharas. The clue was always there in the title. In a way the overwhelming godlike identity or 'self' of Brahma is displaced by the notion of 'his' abodes or spaces (viharas) - another way of removing Self from the equation? Thanks Doug. In reflection and meditation it helps me think of the viharas as unbounded or boundaryless - nowhere for ego or self-identity to get established, so nowhere for the hooks of fettering passions and destructive emotions to take hold.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes that's right, they are the "boundless" states. I discuss them in more detail in an earlier series of videos: kzbin.info/aero/PL0akoU_OszRi-PrNLubfI0LVwkjXbZ-c7

[@sonamtshering194]

The doctrine of anatta doesn't actually deny the existence of a self what it does deny is that the self is permanent and independent

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, I think that's a good approximation to it at any rate.

[@davidknight7933]

Thank you Doug much appreciated 🙏🏻

[@DougsDharma]

My pleasure, David. 🙏

[@GrinninPig]

Excellent

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks!

[@bencharits]

Doug, You have a wonderful summary to this second sermon which to me is the origin of later Mahayana (especially Prajnaparamita) movement on impermanence and emptiness. I love the fact that you pointed it out that the Buddha was arguing against the permanent self of Atta or Atman of the Vedic teaching. I would add that the Buddha and his first five disciples had spent most of their practices to find the Atman or the permanent self through meditation practice. And that the Buddha had discovered that the permanent self does not exist when he got enlightened. To me your explanation was to the point and addressed the knowledge that most Buddhists have forgot or do not even recognize it. I appreciate you laid out the state of the belief system at the time and of the disciples. Thanks for an awesome summary of this very important teaching of the Buddha.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes exactly so! He and the other disciples would have known this material intimately and practiced with it for years.

[@Antonio-uc7vn]

You are wrong lol , Brahman is beyond senses , body , birth and death and ego , mind and thoughts , materialism . Most people like you think Brahman is egoistic in nature , That wrong . But there’s no permanent individual self with thoughts and ego , That’s what buddha realized . And Buddha didn’t argue against atman he kept silent , But he preached about anatman tho .

[@stephenrizzo]

Doug, the Bahiya Sutta has an interesting take on not-self that might be worth a future video. The “argument” and view of no-self is experiential in nature.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, I'll be doing a video on that sutta coming up soon, so stay tuned! 😄

[@johnshaw9396]

Two insightful teachings Doug on the Buddha's second sermon. As you say, there is a subtext here where the Buddha seems to be analysing the Brahman teaching of Atman, which is Being, Consciousness, and Bliss. But the Buddha argues that there is no Being ( permanence) only a constant becoming. So whatever Self is it cannot be Atman. The Buddha's answer is Dependent Origination which sits between Annihilationism and Eternalism - nothing is destroyed only its state is changed and nothing lasts unchanged. The idea of Non Self has morphed in much of Buddhism to No Self which has created much confusion and wrong direction. Most of the time there is an idea of a Self but it changes faster than we can realise.

[@DougsDharma]

Right, I think it can even be important to see and understand this self-conception and how it changes over time.

[@BuddhistTushar]

You are always right about the subtext. I also thought the same thing

[@DougsDharma]

Glad to hear it, TG! 🙏

[@davej92]

I interpret this as the Buddha saying something along these lines, eg… Is form permanent or impermanent? (Impermanent) Is that which is subject to endless change, decay, arising and passing, pleasant or unpleasant? Happiness or suffering? (Certainly unpleasant! Suffering) Do you think it’s a good idea to be thinking that you are something that is endlessly changing and a type of suffering? (Certainly not a good idea!) So let it go stop thinking it, abandon this notion of self within form, not my body! Not ‘my’ car, possessions etc. More like temporary rentals, keep this in mind! This is part of the three marks and seeing things as they really are. I think the Buddha’s genius is essentially to get us out of these silly (impermanent) ideas, thoughts and attachments surrounding ourselves, what am I, who am I, why am I, me? Me? Me? Mine? Mine! Etc. It’s all part of being free :)

[@DougsDharma]

That's right, David. Thanks!

[@marekgrzybek7167]

It's great to hear Buddhist teaching in the context of early Indian philosophy. Thank You for this explanation :)

[@DougsDharma]

You're very welcome Bo! It's thanks to the work of many scholars ...

[@zacharybrandonwilliams2845]

Triple gem bless you sir🙏

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@ramonlutz5104]

Hi Dough, I have a question about the Buddhist view of the soul. It is often said that the Buddha denied the existence of a solid self within the five aggregates. But what about an idea of soul that has no identity, is independent of all conditioned phenomena and is neither born nor dies? In contrast to the conventional idea of a personal, eternal soul as the center of identity and experience, this definition seems more abstract. This description is reminiscent of what is described in Buddhism as uncreated or transcendent, and could be consistent with the idea of nirvana. Some interpretations suggest that the Buddha did not explicitly reject such a transcendent soul. Texts such as the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta (MN 72), in which he leaves the question of the self unanswered, could support this. Did he limit himself only to the denial of the self within the aggregates? I would really appreciate your thoughts on this!

[@DougsDharma]

I have a playlist on the Buddha's view of self and non-self that would be helpful. I don't think he left room for any independent, unchanging notion of a self.

[@ramonlutz5104]

@DougsDharma Thank you very much for answering my question I really appreciate it🙏. You make very good content!!

[@Howie-f3z]

Hi Doug, what's your thoughts on Pure Land Buddhism----have you ever produced any content about it?

[@DougsDharma]

It's something I might get around to doing a video on eventually. Would take some research, so we'll see!

[@siddhartha-1-4-u]

something ideal, permanent, the ultimate indeed should not lead to suffering

[@robertsyrett1992]

Where do you find the relevant intersection between the Buddhist notion of non-self in the age of online profiles and second order observation?

[@DougsDharma]

Well the self-concepts just sort of multiply kaleidoscopically online ... but what's your thinking?

[@robertsyrett1992]

@@DougsDharma I can see a Kaleidoscope right behind you! The culture at large seems to be moving towards online profiles and elevating that profile, perhaps more than the persona we take into daily interactions. Conversely, identity is also becoming more disposable. People make burner accounts and bots to act when they want to avoid direct consequences for their actions. I was wondering if the Dharma's analytical framework sees these phenomena.

[@DougsDharma]

@@robertsyrett1992 I think it can make very good sense of them!

[@默-c1r]

🙏

[@DougsDharma]

🙏🙂

[@surya_11]

The Chachakka Sutta is a great explanation of non-self.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, that's also a great sutta.

[@magnusnilsson2531]

Thank you Doug for interesting talk. I am a former student of advaita vedanta and they also use the term anatman, i.e the bodymind construct that where no self is to be found. You are that which persists over time, the awareness that observe the changes. As far as i understand the Buddhas Middle way, he refuted both no self at all and eternal self. Both views creates an identity as i understand it. Don't you think that Buddha used the religious terms of his time and as i understand it engaged in religious debates with both atheists and eternalists. The deathless, the divine abodes points to that which the Buddha refused to give and selfidentity i suppose. Advaita Vedanta borrowed thoughts from both buddhism and upanishadic shastra but changed the emptiness or noself to Atman/Brahman, and Nirvana to Brahmanirvana, but its strange somewhat what say that there is so much enphasis on working on the subtle body and physical body in buddhism, if its True that the Buddha tought similar view on the body and the world as an illusion supperimposed on the Self. The atheists of his time also, fortgot their name( carvakas?) said there was no self so no person could inherit karma, and the Buddha refuted all that, so who is in account of his karma If there is no one there.

[@DougsDharma]

The Buddha's account of non-self is subtle and interesting. I have a number of videos on the topic, probably the best place to look is my playlist on self and non-self. 🙏

[@xiaomaozen]

😊🙏🏻

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@yhseow]

Hi Doug, do you find the argument that what is impermanence is dukkha strange? Or do you think that the sutta also implied that grasping to the five aggregates, which is impermanent leads to dukkha?

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, well I think the sutta also has that latter implication, though it's less strange. 🙂

[@yhseow]

@@DougsDharma Some people reason that impermanence is not dukkha. Firstly, if the change is for better, then one may even be pleased with it. For eg, when one get better after an illness. Secondly, if the impermanent object does not belong to oneself, then one would not be concern of its changed state. However, if one's existence is built around the belief of an eternal self, then realising that anything assumed to be Self is actually impermanent would be devastating and dukkha.

[@dicsoncandra1948]

Hi Doug, your quotation of MN 148.10 doesn't look right, I am quite sure nowhere in the Sutta would it state that the self arises and vanishes. Could you please give a citation or reference link to it?

[@DougsDharma]

The quotation is correct, though the context is that the Buddha is arguing what’s known in philosophy as a “reductio ad absurdum”. He is saying we can’t accept a certain claim since it leads to untenable conclusions. The citation is here: suttacentral.net/mn148/en/sujato

[@dicsoncandra1948]

@@DougsDharma I see, so basically it is a negation to the absurdity of what would be implicitly assumed to take the eye and so on as 'self'. Gotcha, thanks!

[@soezone208]

The word suffering is too glaring. Why can't we just adopt the word dukkha?

[@DougsDharma]

I think that would be confusing in the context of this second sermon, where the word was used in a new context. "Suffering" is basically what the word would have meant. In a fuller context it means something more akin to "unsatisfactoriness". That said, in this sutta Bhikkhu Sujato translated it "suffering".

[@rajendramenon6610]

Call it unsatisfactoriness. Impermanent and unsatisfactory.

[@joem1152]

The first book to turn me on to Buddhism was Thich Nhat Hahn The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching- it is a great book- Chapter 5 is titled “Is Everything Suffering?” In this chapter Hahn explains how he believes it is a mistake to put “suffering” on the same level of impermanence and non self- he cites the Samyukta Agama and some other sutras- but according to him the 3 marks of existence are - Impermanence, Non Self, and Nirvana- I have not seen anybody else ever say this in all my years of studying Buddhism and he is right that everyone includes suffering as a mark of existence- maybe Buddhism would benefit from this, because like he says, is a table “suffering” ??? Can you really say this?

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, thanks Joe. The three marks of existence go back to the early texts. I did a video on them awhile back: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g6KkiGl4ipeClZo

[@danielgonzalez5787]

I always find it strange how people focus on what they believe to be siddhartha's words instead of focusing on his life, what he actually did, even he could of thought that he found peace threw he's thoughts instead of his actions.

[@DougsDharma]

Well yes, but the only way we know what he did is through his words and those of his closest disciples, at least as they have been passed down to us over the millennia.

[@danielgonzalez5787]

@@DougsDharma so what did he do?

[@danielgonzalez5787]

@@DougsDharma so, what did siddhartha do after he left his his life as a prince?

[@jonathanborella769]

Could it be that the Buddha was making a pragmatic argument rather than an ontological one? Form is impermanent and change is painful. In clinging to form ("This is mine") you just cling to suffering. Therefore the way to liberation can't be found in any self view.

[@DougsDharma]

Sure, that's one way to look at it.

[@louieatkins-turkish1349]

If non-self really means non-brahmanic-self, then in what sense is non-self a universal truth that is applicable today and alleviates suffering?

[@DougsDharma]

Well I think the aim of the Buddha's arguments for non-self are broader than *simply* the self of Vedic Brahmanism, though that's where they started. The Buddha's arguments will confront any notion of a permanent or everlasting self or soul. Such beliefs of course are everywhere, not just among the composers of the Upaniṣads.

[@babeksaber2702]

Thanks for the video. I am not sure I do agree with your "sub-text" prelude. If I was a guessing man I would think that Shakya Muni had a a very deep and precise understanding of the Upanishads, if he indeed had come across them. And that he would know and seen no diffreence between his vision of reality and what HIS understanding of the said scrip[tures. I do think you have done a slight disservice to the said scriptures. Atman is beyond all relative world, so we are told. It can not be known as an object of understanding, we are also told. Only by becoming it can it be known as one knows one-self. Thanks agian

[@jeroenjansen2709]

Anatta refers to the ego only. Your true self is permanent but unmanifested. It does not get reincarnated because it is permanent.

[@joem1152]

One breakthrough I had one day- IS IMPERMANENCE PERMANENT? Is impermanence permanent? Are all things permanently impermanent? Is the one thing that is NOT impermanent impermanence itself? In a way if whatever is impermanent is suffering but impermanence is not impermanent so therefore is impermanence nirvana? Is this the mountains are mountains again?

[@yhseow]

Dependent origination is declared to be permanent regardless of whether Buddha exist or not in the world. All forms of identification with fabrication of eternal Self is impermanent. This is because fabrications arised and ceased out of causes and conditions. "Sabbe sankhara anicca". This is how I understood this statement.

[@DougsDharma]

Right, all things are impermanent. There isn't really a thing "impermanence" though; it's just a concept.

[@Antonio-uc7vn]

@@yhseow individual egoistic self is not real bro .

[@Samana358]

Not convinced that bharmaical Vedas and Upanishads has a place before buddhas time, no archaeological evidence, no linguistic evidence, no historical evidence and about philosophy what you mentioned about Upanishads must be just a world view that there is a eternal higher self which is found in most of spiritual and religious philosophy of ancient times in around the world. If at all exponents of Vedas and the Upanishads had little ideas of the higher bliss which human can achive them bharmaical philosophy wound't have such a ritualistic supeticius and cruel religion. Loving kindness, compassion, simpathtic joy and equanimity has no place in bharmaical order.

[@haovan5273]

Anatta in this second sermon shouldn't be understood as "non-self", it should be "helpless in the rebirth cycle". Because as long as we continue doing good/bad deeds, then we will be reborn 'helplessly' in Saṃsāra.

[@DougsDharma]

Interesting, thanks. I think we aren't completely helpless; that is what practice brings: help. "Non-self" reflects the eventual uselessness of clinging to such help.

[@haovan5273]

@@DougsDharma thanks, and yes, we will find the 'helpful' by walking the Noble Eightfold Path. I don't really understand your final sentence, could you please explain more?

[@hammersaw3135]

I don't think this argument is so strange, if we are able to observe ourselves, we will see that there more movement than rest, more wiggling than static fuzz. The self is like a wave in the water, it appears separate until the water is still, then we can observe that the wave (self) is one with the lake (earth)

[@bahadursunny1674]

sadhu সাধু sadhu

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@penguin0101]

Are you gonna do the third sermon later?😂

[@DougsDharma]

Who knows, maybe eventually! 😄

[@thisthusthat]

Rupa should not be translated as material or form or matter. Rupa is image. In Malay, singhalese, Indonesian language, this Rupa still in use in the meaning of image. As Anatta should not be translated as non self, anatta is Non Personal.

[@DougsDharma]

Rupa is made up of the four elements. It is image, it is also material form that supports the image. In early Buddhism the two are not distinguished.

[@Emotion-3642]

Buddha dont argue .

[@DougsDharma]

The Buddha argued quite a bit with different people in the suttas.

[@bhajandaniel9771]

Is the subtext Upanishadic or does it relate to the selfhood of the purusha of Sankhya? The Upanishadic Atman-Brahman is utterly devoid of any sense of self (and has no mind) but the purusha does have a basic sense of self, though nonidentified with any form and therefore simply a sense of presence. This is lost (or transcended) in Atman-Brahman. I'm not so sure that Brahman is well understood here and it indeed seems to me to be the case that Buddhists generally misunderstand it. My belief has been that Buddha - in opposing the idea that there's a self at the most fundamental level - was in opposition to these assertions in Sankhya. Buddha's teachers, prior to his illumination, were followers of Sankhya after all and he of course walked out on them. I'm not so sure that Buddha denied the existence of an utterly impersonal ground to being such as the Upanishadic sages proposed if the idea of it is properly understood. I've had this debate with several Buddhist friends. I'm definitely not trying to be difficult.

[@DougsDharma]

Well there are places where the Buddha is pretty explicit that he doesn't accept the notion of a "ground of being" either, such as in MN 1. As for the Upaniṣads, I believe most scholars don't think there is a particularly unified belief system put forward in them, but rather a number of related speculations that would have served as the basis for such later systems as (classical) Saṃkhya.

[@Antonio-uc7vn]

@@DougsDharma elaborate

[@iallalli5223]

Doug you mix past and future well into now, so upanishads and Buddhist's are mixed so well. When Shakya Buddha's time, there had not been any upanishads. Hindu's nondual theory had well been completed by Huinung's disciple line, Gaudapada and Sankyara. Buddha's first and second sutta are such polluted, Nonself is for aggregate attached only, not for Doug's Tathagatha self, Nirvana I. Therefore try to count how many I letter in Dharmacakkappavattana sutta? Sutta's whole is only for thathagatha I. When Doug miss this old one's saying, Doug can not enlighten in this life. Think freely. You are all@!🎯

[@dhamma358_]

Namo buddhay 💜 Jay Bhim 🙏🙏🙏

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@Samana358]

Yajnavalkya vedic sage could not be placed before buddha, if he is placed before buddha entire literature of this sage which also has civil code, written in Sanskrit has no historical linguistic or archaeological evidence , it's only history written in books at a very later date in nagari lipi (style) which impossible to place before buddha time.🙏🎉

[@Samana358]

Upnishad cannot be outcome of Vedas it can come out of systematic contemplation possible only by Buddhist mind.

[@yongjiean9980]

Utter ignorance of the Dhamma