The Buddhist Theory of No Self // Buddhist Philosophy (guest submission)

[@johnfretz1938]

A Buddhist monk (Robina Courtin) gave an example that helped me better understand the concept. As I recall it was something along the lines of saying, there is no inherent self. No indivisible part of me that retains everything which I consider "myself". That wasn't to say nothing existed, but that which did exist was so small as almost not to matter. And certainly not enough to call a "self." She used a cup as an example. As she held it up, we could all agree she grasped a thing which we labeled "cup"; but the object itself held within it no inherent cup-ness as it were. If one broke the cup down into its component parts, there was no inherent "cup" to be found. Only smaller and smaller constituent parts. So "cup" was just a label we placed on the collection of those parts, but it was merely a label that was placed upon a thing which held no permanence. The cup didn't exist in and of itself. So in the same way, the "self" is merely a label we place upon the constituent parts that make us up. Examine and remove each of the constituent parts, and one finds no self, no inherent indivisible I. That's my understanding of it anyhow.

[@mattw2792]

although there's no singular "i" or self, who's to say the self can't be a collection of ideas, perceptions, and neurological functions?

[@Antonio-uc7vn]

@@mattw2792 there’s self

[@tengzhunmun4407]

​@@mattw2792 Lets assume I is a collection of beings. Then we will find the pass I, current I and future I are not same entity. It show concept I is actually inconsistent, it is just a conventional label for communication. Buddhism didn't reject conventional I, it only reject solid I(atman). I is a conventional label for a collection of constantly changing beings, but people always clink to a solid I.

[@aadithyahrudhay2269]

I really enjoyed the fact that you packed this nuanced idea in a 7-minute video, with an organized and logical flow... I was having trouble finding a video where the concept was succinctly and clearly explained. Thank you!

[@FNRushPatriot]

This was exactly what I was looking for. A clear and direct approach to this question.

[@andeexists8716]

This is actually fascinating! I was having an argument with myself about how consciousness must be what I am. However, I still think I believe I’m myself when I’m sleeping or even if I’m in a coma... It’s such an interesting concept to think about tbh

[@empirical_blade6926]

How do you deal with the fact that the goal of Buddhism is to just die and dissapear?

[@chaoticneutral7573]

@@empirical_blade6926 Material Atheists: wait you guys count this as goal ?

[@chilldragon4752]

@@empirical_blade6926That is not the goal of Buddhism at all. For what it's worth I have a BA in religious studies.

[@ryanwightman3311]

Absolutely loved this, I’ve studied Buddhism myself at AS and always been so envious of people who study religion at uni! Thank you for this ❤️

[@kanishkaranasinghe4405]

I'm a buddhist from Sri Lanka and am myself struggling to understand the concept of "No Self" and its implications. I Really found your presentation very informative. And the presentation so calm and to the point. Thank you.

[@Antonio-uc7vn]

There’s is self bruh

[@MustAfaalik]

@@Antonio-uc7vn Only because you have been indoctrinated with the idea of creation, bro.

[@Antonio-uc7vn]

@@MustAfaalik elaborate hat you mean ?

[@VBL16]

​@@Antonio-uc7vn there is a self but conceptual self.not inherent one

[@Antonio-uc7vn]

@@VBL16 elaborate bruh what are you trying say ?

[@georgia9092]

This is so interesting! I’m not a Buddhist, but I’m learning about Buddhism in RS gcse, so this was so helpful as it really helped me to understand more about this concept :)

[@eric6345]

Thank you for this video. I just started taking this Philosophy course; I have to write a philosophical essay about Bertrand Russell and his ideas of self and not-self. I didn't realize that this idea of not-self originated from Buddhism. Please keep exploring different philosophical topics and posting to KZbin! Thank you Thank you Thank you. 💯

[@wordscapes5690]

Thank you, Alice.

[@bahadursunny1674]

I am a Theravada buddhist from Bengal, Bangladesh. It's quite interesting that you are using "Sanskrit". we usually use pali. So we would say "Anatta" as non self and "Rupa","Vedana","Sannya","Samkhara" and "Vinnana" as the five aggregates.

[@george66827]

Very simple and very deep! Thanx!

[@cr7neymar908]

can someone tell me why I have to take a religion class for a computer science degree

[@moniniekmet6]

nice explanation.

[@mylightinyou]

Love the video so much! Just subscribed to ur channel!

[@mariona713]

So interesting thank you!! 💖

[@LordUhtred1]

This is very good and opens up some further paths to examine.

[@fry5544]

Thank you Alice, fascinating. 👍🏽

[@MustAfaalik]

The idea of non self becomes clearer during meditation when intuitive wisdom is accessed.

[@nayanmalig]

Rebirth is different to reincarnation which needs a permanent soul moving from body to body after death ... Rebirth is more like a relay runner handing the baton to another person in a never ending relay of life and death ... The baton is your consciousness or memories which are dispersed into the atmosphere at death. Somebody else may or may not inherit them . there is only one life and this mind body combination called self is unique and will never be reassembled as it is. This is what I contend and is open to challenge.

[@dunner079]

Well rebirth is just the karmic result of the previous lives, isn't it? It's not actually you or a soul going into the next life.

[@sahanlalpewickrama7229]

Thank you ❤

[@bayreuth79]

I want to point out that _anatman_ (or, in Pāli, _anatta_ ) does not mean "no self" (as Alice said in this video) but rather "not self". If one looks in scholarly books about _anatta_ one will find that scholars eschew "no self" or "no soul" as not adequately translating the meaning of the term _anatta_ .

[@Jackitate]

This is really important and I hope that this person comes to see your comment.

[@jjbentley9]

I agree they do not use the word soul. But it's gos with out saying they believe something remains after the death of the physical body. They do not call the afterlife heaven. And this not a place but a state of consciousness. And it's not forever it's temporary. Everything changes when they say no self no permanent self. They mean that because the energy or jiva or spirit. Evolves over time. It doesn't stay the same. That gos without saying with the belief in reincarnation. That's the point of reincarnation that the energy be etc evolves over many life's. People make it sound like they do not believe in a soul at all. They in my office do just difference of titles like any other tradition or culture. And they don't believe afterlife is forever. Which this is the Truth.

[@boredguywithcards]

Yes ! I was thinking this too. The Buddha specifically and intentionally distinguished his idea of "non-self" from the idea of self and also from "no-self". He taught non-self as the part of the middle way, which was so integral to his philosophy. No-self was already a philosophical standpoint that he disagreed with.

[@Antonio-uc7vn]

@@boredguywithcards self is higher way …. We are all are part of cosmic consciousness Which includes animals , all living beings ..

[@tsurugi5]

@@Antonio-uc7vn uh...no

[@sampatha6994]

You're great sister

[@saumitragautam8333]

❤️🍈🍏🍋😇🍊🍉🍇🍎❣️🍌🍍🥭💰💵💶💸💳🧾🧘‍♀️🙏💴😊♾️💷🪙😍🤓🧘‍♂️❤️

[@fungi42o0]

I liked your description

[@theUnmanifest]

you're missing the point which is experienced when we awaken. the idea is that you have a sense of "me" inside, when you say "I'm me!" "I'm a 25 yo girls from this place etc..." when you say that you have a feeling of "me" that arises in your experience. when you say "me" it feels different than when you say the word "table" that is your FALSE sense of me. when you meditate, which is simply paying attention to your experience, then you can feel that sense of "me" and realise that its not the real you. that its a bio-mechanical construct made up by your body. once you see it as such, you feel it, then it literally dissolve away. disappears, gone. eventually you end up with no feeling of "me" in your experience whatsoever. and this is the day that you are enlighten. enjoy!

[@ryarya3291]

Thank u very much

[@saumyasingh1242]

Thank u it was such a nice information. I m student of philosophy from India. ❤️ But as far as we study here in texts, Buddha was born in 6 cent B.C.

[@jampaart9215]

Doesn’t matter ❤

[@Eliot_May]

Composites are also unified, they are dependant phenomenal descriptions, with the idea of wholes, comes the ability to split them into parts. Therefore all dependent phenomenon by way of being splittable into skandhas, ie. lumps, are also in great union as well and non-separate. No=negation self= (in the way it is used in Buddhism is a negation as well, as they don't see a singular, permanent, thing, identity, etc.) so this is a double negation. The self they are negating in no-self in their definition already doesnt exist nor has it ever primordially. They do say that we have ignorance which is by nature removable. Ignorance is like jaundice or wearing rosed tinted glasses where we conform our idea of the world with the self, abstraction we are viewing it through. This though is removable, from the causal point of view, or from the results enlightenment was never there to begin with, it was only due to our misapprehension we thought it to be so. Nice video. Keep studying!

[@tanyasinspirations]

Such an interesting video! I will subscribe to your channel 💖

[@dunner079]

Our goal is the absolute annihilation of the self and a complete return to the primordial universe, the void.

[@dunner079]

@@Unknown-dh8km True that.

[@lena-3853]

Nice video 😊👍

[@purumr]

Can you please make a video comparing or contrasting concept of self in advaita and Buddhism. One says you are everything and another says you are nothing. I think, both are same in a way because our suffering comes by identifying as something.

[@freekygrafix]

What helped me with understanding these Concepts a little bit further, was the idea that contradictions of terms can exist in harmony. From a duelist perspective, one might say there is my soul and then there is God. But from a non dualist perspective, one might say there is no soul, there is only God. Because from this perspective one sees their own Essence as part and parcel of the greater whole which is God. Both can be correct and the only difference is the perspective in which we are able to describe our perception.

[@memesmojo5622]

swami sarvapayananda has made some videos comparing atma and shunyata, watch them

[@jimmyfaulkner1855]

I am interested in what are Buddhists (mainly interested in Zen Buddhism) views on the nature of the mind and consciousness? What is mind? What is consciousness? Do Buddhists believe we have an unconscious mind? Essentially, how does Buddhism approach the philosophy of mind? Philosophy of mind is a branch of philosophy that studies the ontology and nature of the mind and its relationship with the body. Aspects of the mind that are studied include mental events, mental functions, mental properties, consciousness and its neural correlates, the ontology of the mind, the nature of cognition and of thought, and the relationship of the mind to the body. The central problem in philosophy of mind is the mind-body problem. This problem concerns the explanation of the relationship that exists between minds, or mental processes, and bodily states or processes. The main aim of philosophers working in this area is to determine the nature of the mind and mental states/processes, and how - or even if - minds are affected by and can affect the body. Dualism and monism are the two central schools of thought on the mind-body problem today, although nuanced views have arisen that do not necessarily fit one or the other category neatly. There are numerous views such as substance dualism, property dualism, physicalism/materialism, panpsychism, idealism, double aspect theory, neutral monism, and more. Dualism finds its entry into Western philosophy thanks to René Descartes in the 17th century. Substance dualists like Descartes argue that the mind is an independently existing substance, whereas property dualists maintain that the mind is a group of independent properties that emerge from and cannot be reduced to the brain, but that it is not a distinct substance. Monism is the position that mind and body are ontologically indiscernible entities, not dependent substances. This view was first advocated in Western philosophy by Heraclitus and Parmenides in the 5th century BCE and was later espoused by the 17th-century rationalist Baruch Spinoza. Physicalists/materialists argue that only entities postulated by physical theory exist, and that mental processes will eventually be explained in terms of these entities as physical theory continues to evolve. Physicalists maintain various positions on the prospects of reducing mental properties to physical properties (many of whom adopt compatible forms of property dualism), and the ontological status of such mental properties remains unclear. When it comes to physicalism you can be either a reductive physicalist or non-reductive physicalist. Reductive physicalists assert that all mental states and properties will eventually be explained by scientific accounts of physiological processes and states. Non-reductive physicalists argue that although the mind is not a separate substance, mental properties supervene on physical properties, or that the predicates and vocabulary used in mental descriptions and explanations are indispensable, and cannot be reduced to the language and lower-level explanations of physical science. Idealists maintain that the mind is all that exists and that the external world is either mental itself, or an illusion created by the mind. Panpsychism is the view that the mind or a mindlike aspect is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. It is also described as a theory that "the mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe." Neutral monists such as Ernst Mach and William James argue that events in the world can be thought of as either mental (psychological) or physical depending on the network of relationships into which they enter, and dual-aspect monists such as Spinoza adhere to the position that there is some other, neutral substance, and that both matter and mind are properties of this unknown substance. Other subbranches of philosophy that are related to the philosophy of mind are philosophy of perception and philosophy of self. In the context of philosophy of mind, the problem of free will also takes on renewed intensity. Do Buddhists believe we have free will or is it an illusion? So, with all this stated, what are Buddhists views on the nature of the mind and consciousness? What model of the mind do Buddhists hold to and how does consciousness arise according to Buddhism? Does Buddhism defend dualism, monism or something else? Do we have free will according to Buddhism? I know all of this is deep but I am very interested in both philosophy of mind and Buddhism (especially Zen Buddhism) and therefore I think these ideas are of great significance and in desperate need for exploration.

[@warwicklydiate9350]

Is the Buddhist idea strictly no self, or no abiding self? Impermanence does not imply non-existence does it?

[@bike4aday]

Impermanence implies the non-existence of "a permanent, unchanging self". In order for such to exist it would have to defy impermanence. These are 2 of the 3 characteristics, the third is suffering. In full context - "all phenomena are impermanent, no phenomena are self, and making self out of impermanent phenomena is jarring, frustrating, and leads to suffering".

[@Antonio-uc7vn]

@@bike4aday most people misunderstand self in Hinduism , Self is not egoistic in nature , it’s everything and nothing at same time .. It’s eternal it has no beginning nor the end , modifications of prakriti(nature) have no affect on Brahman . Rebirth all this stuff have no affect on Brahman , it remains constant , we must eliminate ego to obtain this state

[@TishanWickramasinghe]

great 😘

[@vikramoojorah566]

🙏

[@michaelg1569]

Why does the self have to be permanent?

[@janascholz8026]

Love ur voice. Do u have a podcast? :)

[@chathuranganevermind8465]

Thanq miss from srilanka❤❤❤

[@k.l.spencer5635]

Nice video, nice Alice. It's a shame about a few of the other people on your channel.

[@robertvondarth1730]

To self, is a verb

[@odysseaspappas]

I am interested to know what the presenter believes. Interesting how she explains the ideas. She seems to understand the truth.

[@jjbentley9]

They believe everything is temporary. They do not use the word by soul. But they do believe something remains after the death of the physical body. They do not use the word heaven but this is not a place but a state of consciousness. And it's temporary before moving on to reincarnation. Unless nirvana or liberation is reached. Not having to come back for more physical life's. When they say there is no permanent self. They mean that the soul or energy always changes and it progresses. That gos without saying that's the hole entire reason for reincarnation. For the souls progression. So it's not called a soul. But really that's what it is there views are different from the abrahamic religions. But they do believe something remains after death.

[@minthura9053]

There is no reincarnation in original Buddhism.

[@jjbentley9]

@@minthura9053 Buddhism is from Hindulism so I'd say it prop was.

[@khantminkhantmin299]

May I know where U live?

[@lokiholland]

Buddhist methodology is a apophatic methodology, a brilliant way to burnmthay what is not.

[@dparamful]

Atman and soul are different. They're often confused as same or similar by Westerners.

[@Sawo-500]

Firstly, Buddhism is not religion. Gautama Buddha is not created religion. He preached Dharma.

[@3dartist123]

hey, what I understand by buddha is nothing is important, so dont think like how I will survive without that. I am trying to follow it.

[@chiroo2]

This is completely wrong approach, this can't be explained in words but it has to be experienced directly. You should know if you study it that the goal of Buddhism is an actual experience of yourself and not some scientific mumbo jumbo. But if you haven't experienced it you cannot have the slightest idea about it... Besides, Buddha is actually a title, meaning 'the awaken one', and there are many Buddhas in the world now

[@darshananiroshan7760]

Buddhism in not a philosophy (Dharshanaya). it's opposite of philosophy (Vidharshanaya). Our knowledge consists of concepts and theories that build on it. This knowledge is null. That is, conceptual knowledge is null. The concepts we create are relative to the mind. It is not absolute. Nothing is perfect. Everything, that is, everything that we think exists, is relative to the mind. It says that if there is something, then there is something else, and if there is nothing, then nothing else. For Buddhists, the mind is key. But the mind is another organ for us. None of the other five organs can function without the mind. Everything other than the mind exists relative to the mind. It is all created with the mind in mind. It should be emphasized again that the creation of the mind does not mean that everything is not. Everything else, that is, the conceptual world was created by the mind, so without the mind, none of them exist as concepts. The chair is a concept created by the mind in our culture. It is not objective. It is not absolute. It is only relative to the mind. The same can be said of the chair and all other concepts. The question now is whether the mind is witness to whom. Suppose it is relative to another super-mind. Then it is asking a question. There is no definitive answer. Do those other supposedly natural concepts really exist? Are they relative to the super-minded? What is the Super Mind? Are our answers to this question a realistic super-mind? Answering these questions will not help. The mind comes into contact with the mind and comes up with answers and answers. Like other concepts, the mind is relative to the mind. There is no such thing as a mind. In short, the mind is not a relative mind. The mind is also in the mind of the truth. The mind is also just a fantasy. In other words, there is no such thing as a mind. There is not a mind but a mind. Where there is no mind, we have a mind. It's like having a chair without a chair. There is a difference between taking a chair and not having it all. There is no such thing as a chair, etc., but it is conceptual. So there is a difference between not having everything and not having a chair. It is wrong to have everything and not have everything. It's just wrong to have a chair. There is no such thing as a chair. The concept of a chair is null. It is wrong to have a mind, not just a chair. It's a mind we don't take for granted. No chair.

[@BarbarraBay]

lol - u have no idea. ready ur post is like reading a comedy

[@chaoticneutral7573]

Whis is why i dont believe in spirituality - lots of usless mumbo jumbo

[@empirical_blade6926]

How do you deal with the fact that the goal of Buddhism is to just die and dissapear?

[@charmaine7301]

@@BarbarraBay if you had passion for this subject...you'd make sense out of anything 😊

[@BarbarraBay]

@@charmaine7301 You are confused.

[@rajanbarua977]

সাধু সাধু সাধু। জগতের সকল প্রাণী সুখী হউক। 💐💐💐💘💘💘💐💐💐💝💝💝🐘🐘🐘🙏🙏🙏🇧🇩 Thanks Sister, Wonderful You Are Mantle Shame Shame People s Evre Vare I Love, Not Onle Sister s. From BANGLADESH.

[@Sawo-500]

Are you Bengali Buddhist? Why bro Bengali Muslims persecution non Bengali Buddhists.( Tribe Buddhists)

[@AnhNguyen-tn7ne]

the video image is too poor, you need to fix it more

[@claytonwood961]

I just can’t believe that you think that Buddhism is a religion. The impertinence of youth.

[@aarubabygirl]

Hey!!! I am from india and 😅 as you are from UK so there is a lit bit problem in understanding your accent so please if you can do something about that then it'll really be helpful . Thank you 😊

[@dunner079]

Do you want her to speak in an Indian accent? My God you are a clown sir.

[@mahakalabhairava9950]

Buddhism rejected transmigration of personal self. True Self is Buddha Nature.