The "self" in the teaching of the buddha is not an entity but the concept that created by the mental activity that personalised everything likes or dislikes.

@loveandpeace8760

3 жыл бұрын

@@karlinguk you can wiki "anatta"

@nettinetti8465

2 жыл бұрын

@@karlinguk Actually, NO. Not all Buddhists have the correct view about "self" and holds to different teachings other than what the Tatagatha taught about "anatta." You can trace the history of how Buddhism geared away from the original dhamma of the Buddha and followed the assumptions (claimed as "schools of thought") of Buddhist scholars instead of the very words of the Buddha orally remembered and later on written in the suttas. Example: Buddha nature, Rigpa, etc. The Buddhadhamma (teachings of the Buddha) were proven supreme, authentic, and true by the early Indians of his time and the time of his disciples. That is why many Indians then turned to Buddhism. It was when the students of the disciples of the Buddha and later students that the Mahayana views originating from the Mahasamghika started creeping into the Buddhist sangha that the teachings slowly geared away from the original dhamma. That gave way for Adi Sancaracarya to refute successfully the Buddhist view on Buddha nature through his strong proposition on Atman via Advaita Vedanta. Since Advaita Vedanta speaks of the same Buddha nature as the Atman (though terminologies of Buddhists on anatta differ), the Indians then turned back to Sanatana Dharma/Brahminism/Hinduism. It was this view on Buddha nature that made the Buddhist teachings weak and defeated by Sancaracarya which led Buddhism to be driven out of India. While other Buddhists who held on to the original teachings of the Buddha dispersed through Sri Lanka and other parts of Southeast Asia. The Tathagatagarbha doctrine/teaching (Buddha nature) arose later giving way towards the mainstream Mahayana Buddhism, but was not taught by the Buddha or his disciples/bhikkus. The Buddha nature is an innovation of Buddhist scholasticism.

@tsurugi5

Жыл бұрын

@@nettinetti8465 correct the only things that are empty are the aggregates, but nagarjuna brought it too far and claimed sunyata

Anatta is a complicated, confusing, and difficult teaching of Buddha because Buddha never discovered the true self. Buddha did discover a lot about what the self was not. When Buddha talked about what the self is not, he was clear and not confusing because he understood what he was saying. “Everything that can be said can be said clearly.” -Ludwig Wittgenstein “If you cannot explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” -Albert Einstein

A simple example I’ve come to understand is the self is formless like your consciousness. It can soar, expand, contract, spread, and retract, even become abstract, yet it is born in the material inside a body.

@goldenmeanphaseconjunction313

Жыл бұрын

The awareness can only be aware, It can only imagine, but needs material To extrapolate new information, for new wisdom, new growth. Did you all really think that we are just here at a loss with the potential of chance any semblance of enlightenment?

Good afternoon from Marquette Michigan

Sadhu

If I may, let me simplify this. The Buddha never said there is no self. Nope. He said there is no "permanent" or "unchanging" thing we call the self. Notice the subtle difference here or you'll still be confused. Let me explain.. There is a self, however; it never remains the same from moment to moment. It is in a constant state of flux. You can see this is true if you were to examine the difference between you at five years old with you right now. If you compare the two, they seem as though they are two different beings. They are NOT the same. The only link is memory. If you were to remove this memory, you would have no way to link the five year old you with the you now. This is the self. It changes constantly. So what is reborn then? I'll use an analogy to explain how this process works. Let's use a river, when you name a river, what is it that gets the name? Is it the water? No. Because the water is constantly changing and never the same water. Its being replenished every moment. So why would we name the water? So is it the channel which the water is following? No, because if the water were to be removed, would we call the channel the water follows, the river? No. It is the combination of elements when they are present , will constitute what we call the river. If you were to remove any one of the elements then it ceases being a river. This is the self. Just like the river, it changes constantly, evaporates, becomes rain and enters another channel to become a new river. This is the self. The self is this river and the channel which it flows is the karmic body. The water must follow the channel how ever given enough time and effort the water can change this channel in which it flows. Karma can be changed, it is not set in stone. If karma were not changeable then no being could ever become a buddha.

There is a contradiction in Buddhist teachings- while it claims there is no self, it also talks about rebirth. To meet these two opposing ideas, the scholars need huge intellectual juggernaut. Forget rebirth guys and you will attain freedom.

There are elements and process of mind activities that usually we call self but that self is not self that permanent , that self is hallucination cause of clinging for existence. There is self in common view, but not self actually. The emergence of self clinging at this moment, related it self with emergence of self clinging in the past and in the future. Thats why, "not self" , but still if someone doing action he/she will get reaction. so karma and rebirth is do exist until we get our liberation

@c.a.t.732

Жыл бұрын

Huh?

What is being reborn? Life!

hi hi hi

So what really happens when a enlightened person (Buddha) dies? Yes, i know he stops taking rebirth but what exactly happens to his transmigrating mind? Is it completely destroyed? ... In other words, does his individuality ceases even at the most subtlest level and the person stops existing? ... If not, then does his liberated mind goes to some higher heavenly/buddha realm?

@alpha-vs1fx

2 жыл бұрын

No. It's all done. Nothing is reborn. No higher realm.

@tomtillman

2 жыл бұрын

@@alpha-vs1fx Well, that sounds a bit depressing. Why would a being want to cease to exist? Are you saying nothing exists of the enlightened being after the death of the enlightened being? I have never seen this question answered. Anywhere. Even by the Buddha. UPDATE 7/22/22: Ok, i have seen this idea discussed a few times now, by Ajahn Braham, and others. According to the Buddha, the being's existence ceases. It's like he never existed, except in the minds of others who have not reached Nibbana, died, and ceased themselves. How could the Buddha know this? He was an Earthling, not God. This is either wrong, or confusing, or somehow mistranslated or something. It makes no sense. What do you guys and girls think? Cheers.

@odalchiszaratutu6793

Жыл бұрын

He no longer is bounded by the realm of logic and argumentation, so there's no possible answer to that question, the concept of "a thing" no longer aplies since a buddha is no longer a slave of conceptualisation, saying that he is annihilated is also a lie since annihilation is also a concept, the only way you can approach this question is by via negativa, you can say whatit is, but what is it not

@odalchiszaratutu6793

Жыл бұрын

@@tomtillman because existence in this sense is completly unpleasant, it's like the life of a complete addict that can't do anthing else but to keep falling i to his addiction, he knows he's not free and that his life is not worth being lived that way, all he has is suffering and despair, craving, fear and dellusion about what lufe really is, because his mind is completly ofuscated by his addiction, but at the same time the only thing he wants is the same thing that keeps putting him in that awful state The problem with the question about "if something remains" after nibanna is that is porly framed, since it already implues a substance that should or should not remain, but buddhism doesn't use a ontology of substances but an ontology of proccess, so the idea of something remaining is already off to a bad start, nothing remains because there was no thing to beging with, the dhamma tells you a way to change one process (SAMSARA) into another (nibanna)

@talldarknindian3695

Жыл бұрын

@@odalchiszaratutu6793 if samsara is a process, then could it be that samsara is felt by people in THIS lifetime every time an aggregate arises and is mistaken for self? Then, nirvana would be the process of seeing the aggregate for the aggregate, and not as part of the illusory self, and hence, there no identification with it, and thus no suffering.

This is a word game. Whatever can continue is the self. Call it whatever you like

@odalchiszaratutu6793

2 жыл бұрын

not at all, you're the one doing a word game, "the self" in this context has a pretty specific definition, in order to be a self it must continue forever, it must remain unchangeable and unaffected, the wood that makes a chair can remain if the chair is destroyed, but it will become ashes if is set on fire, and those ashes in some way are linked to the chair, but no one would call those ashes a chair, no one would try to sit on those ashes like it was a chair, causation and interdependency is what creates consistency and identity in the world, we then to confuse that dynamic with a self, but it's not the same thing," thing resisiting transformation" is not the same as "a thing outside of transformation"

I've been on this planet for 69 years and still haven't found a 'self'!

@godofzah

3 жыл бұрын

find it by first identifying what is not self untill you run out of things and the mind goes blank and you no longer can tell were you begin and were you end in nirvana (you as in the experience not actual self)

@ThatGuy-iv4tc

2 жыл бұрын

If “ you” are looking for a self you’ll never discover your true nature. Stop seeking, & there it is.

@iosho3473

Жыл бұрын

You have to do as shown by your enlightened spiritual masters, do it. .

@zendog8592

Жыл бұрын

The self is permanently impermanent. The self knows itself through impermanence, the self is the light that illuminates impermanence.

No self does not mean nothing remains after the death of the physical body. It's not called soul. But it's different name in every teaching tradition or religion spiritual teaching's. Everything changes so the very fact the energy that remains after death. Call it spirit soul a jiva whatever go through many different life time's. Tells us it does not stay the same it evolves. This hole entire reason for reincarnation for the soul etc progression. They do not use the term heaven. And it's not a place it's a temporary resting period a state of consciousness not really a place. It's temporary again it's ever changing before moving on to reincarnation. Unless nirvana or liberation is reached. No more coming back to the physical body. So many people make that so so confusing you we'll leave thinking nothing remains at all after death. Just different terms different views. I've found this to be my Truth for sure.