The nihilism the Buddha preached is downplayed in the West. In india, 'Atman' is the same as 'Brahman'. Brahman is the reality. When you look at the Indian tradition before the Buddha, there is pure life after you drop your body. All the Upanishads teach that I am Atman/Brahman. Now the Buddha come and says that you are not Atman/Brahman and the upanishads are void. The Buddha says there is only nihilism, or anatman.

@andra1179

6 жыл бұрын

If you read some texts you can find where its is claimed to avoid Eternalism and Nihilism. Both are one concept but discriminate by the human mind. The reason he proclaims there is no self is because that belief of the "eternal self" creates suffering when the death of the human body's senses comes. When we think of eternal self, we understandably consider it as our human senses carrying on (ie Josh thinks that everything that makes Josh, himself will carry on after what the human body is dependent on, no longer is. But everything that makes Josh separate himself as Josh and concrete himself is only his mind and his environment. For instance, josh would not be the same josh he thinks he is, if were raised by wolfs as soon as he left his mothers womb. he would just be a wolf with no name and no human characteristics as far as "personality" and what he cares about etc.) He teaches that everything is empty of SELF. A flower is not made of flower, garbage is not made of garbage, humanity is not made of humanity. So if you hold on to this false sense of self, thinking that you will last eternally, once the death of senses that make you able to have a personality go away, so will you) Truth is devoid of words. The teaching he preaches for eternal joy is that we are composed of everything besides self) Think about this, if something has a name, this means that it is a discrimination that is dependent upon things. What would you call this self? Is it the brain? if there was no blood, then the brain wouldnt be functional, if there was no brain, the blood would be irrelevant. If we had blood and brain and no neurotic activity, those would be useless. If we have all of our body parts and no oxygen. Even oxygen cannot escape this because it needs hydrogen as well. What about this very energy we say creates all? Energy is mass times the speed of light squared. But if mass has a name, that means it is made of something, so what is what mass is made of made of? Same for light? The true teaching is beyond concept of words, you have to experience it yourself, and aliign yourself to rules of conduct that you must practice until it becomes natural. The true teaching is "No self, no non-self"

@Flaytt744

6 жыл бұрын

she asked the question "on the premise" that she was an "individual"..the question is actually mute, because for a fire (for example) NOT to be extinguished , it should have begun to burn by itself. She was born through causes and conditions,when she dies causes and conditions will determine where/when/who she will be reborn as..and remember all these (where/when/who) are all designations of the human mind

@andra1179

6 жыл бұрын

Beautifully said. People forget that we are natural consciousness dependent on other consciousness forces. The discrimination are all by the mind.

@incarceratedconscious5939

6 жыл бұрын

Moesy Pittounikos It's no being and no non being so it's not nihilism or there would be no "no non being" in the new translation of the Heart Sutra.

@raresmircea

6 жыл бұрын

I'm Crz - "the point is to look along the pointing finger and see the moon, NOT to marvel at the finger" I cannot speak for "enlightenment" because i haven't seen the moon, but i have a pretty good understanding of the finger (intellectual understanding i mean). From here, from the intellectual perspective, it's pretty obvious that there isn't some absolute truth to be understood. Rather, it's an ever greater ability to notice subtlety. There is a beautiful Zen saying, which went something like: "following the teaching is like balancing on a blade that keeps getting narrower, increasing your chances to fall in one extreme or another". I see you're intellectually inclined, so i think you'll enjoy these thoughts about the existence or non-existence of self: medium.com/@rares_mircea_82/we-have-no-personal-essence-and-we-have-no-free-will-c9d6be7fce3c#201d

Anatta - no self, no ego, no me. It is not nihilism. It is deeper than that. The binaries good/bad light/dark fullness/emptiness up/down. Nihilism is a view still bound by forms, and stating the meaninglessness, and thus value one side of the binary (meaning/meaningless) over the other. When you are still attached to forms and attached to one side of the binary, you are still blind. Nirvana is free from attachment. Anatta, no self, is pretty much the last state of reaching enlightenment, which for most Buddhism practitioners shouldn't worry about until you have given up the material life, meat, sex to become a monk, have had gone through vispassana, and were coming close to enlightenment. But to understand what Buddha said in his sutra "a better way to catch a snake", it is No self. All thoughts feelings perceptions senses are not me, not who i am, not what i am. All things are impermanent, subject to change. It doesn't matter if things have meanings or not. There is no death because there is no life. Death isn't dying. Death is a transition, one stage to another. Don't be fixated on whether life has meaning or not, pleasures or suffering, and especially dont be fixated on the teachings of Buddha itself. Buddha said his teachings are not a doctrine or philosophy or theory, but like a raft that you can use to carry yourself over the river of suffering. When you have reached the other side, you don't pick it up and carry it with you but leave it on the river. Also know that the realization of Buddha and Enlightenment isn't something that can be described by words and concepts. His teachings the shadow of the tree, follow the shadow you will find the tree and can touch it yourself. Meditation as a way to follow the shadow to the tree. P.s. I could be completely wrong.

@awesometracy

4 жыл бұрын

Shinjitzu no you are correct. Buddhism preaching is that there is always changing. That anatta is no soul at the same time there is a soul. You have a body and a soul, and no body and no soul, because they always change and transform. The only thing that follows you after you die is karma.

@amrenshahida726

4 жыл бұрын

Hmm

@VictorLugosi

3 жыл бұрын

Shinjitzu stay off the drugs

@thematrix7584

3 жыл бұрын

@@awesometracy proof of karma?

@zitronentee

3 жыл бұрын

I think it's like rejecting labels and refusing to be boxed.

To the uploader of this video, I see as you’ve pinned a comment which is describing Anatman as nihilistic. If anything the Buddha wanted more for the followers of the dharma, that would be to avoid two extreme views such as believing in Eternalism and Nihilism. The path should be traveled with very careful steps avoiding these two extremes so as to way the middle way. I hope you get what this comment is directed for. Thank you

@emersuleme

3 жыл бұрын

Bro, you read in my mind. Ananda Sutta "Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?" When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. "Then is there no self?" A second time, the Blessed One was silent. Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left. Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?" "Ananda, if I - being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self - were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I - being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self - were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I - being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self - were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?" "No, lord." "And if I - being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self - were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

@100monotheist-fkeroffalseg8

2 жыл бұрын

@@emersuleme so what was the answer ? buddha seemed like confused himself lol

@TheGuiltsOfUs

2 жыл бұрын

No-self = Atman

@100monotheist-fkeroffalseg8

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheGuiltsOfUs no self is anatman

I love how he just starts laughing like a regular dude.

@mullerkapunski43

3 жыл бұрын

Immm, he is a regular dude🤨🤔

Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.

@thematrix7584

3 жыл бұрын

wat u means?

@MrCod18

3 жыл бұрын

@@thematrix7584 drink more water

@thematrix7584

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrCod18 I think you have mntal problm....

@MrCod18

3 жыл бұрын

Spot on

@gridcoregilry666

3 жыл бұрын

@@thematrix7584 from the outside it doesn't change much what you "have to do" once you become enlightened

I am not Buddhist or follow and particular religion but have studied the major ones to some extent. It seems to me the self in Buddhism refers to the ego self,a person ,which is actually just an idea in the mind, therefore it is not a" thing".... it doesn't exist. This is what Prince Siddhartha discovered,the person he thought he was, was just an idea.! and he woke up, became the BUDDHA, one who is Awake, free of the idea of a personal self, the ego... .... . There are countless Buddhas walking around. But SELF in Hinduism refers to our real nature, the Eternal Atman-- never born, so cannot die..the unborn formless SELF. Also "mind" in Hinduism refers to thought,in particular a bundle of thoughts which turn into ideas and action . But in reality there is no mind either, it is not an independent thing that we possess. So we do not have a "self", we ARE SELF. one could also say SOUL ,we dont have a soul we ARE SOUL or ATMA. we dont have a mind,when there are no thoughts, there is "no mind" in Buddhism and Hinduism. The truth of who we are is formless and cannot be described but can be named and known.Humans love to name everything. The ego self can be described ,we know it very well unfortunately.! When the realization comes there is no person in the way of the formless SELF or BUDDHA / CHRIST/NATURE. these are not possessions of ego,for there is not a " me" an "ego" that has anything. Thats how I see it,whoever I am.

@thutopstpr

8 жыл бұрын

You have great knowledge. :)

@jonsmith4669

8 жыл бұрын

+Thutop Stpr Thanks Thutop I would add the even Neuro Scientists say there is no self in the brain,there is no one in there. Its quite obvious the self is conditioned from an early age when one becomes self aware, apparently separate from others,at about 2-3 years of age. The brain makes up a mind made self as an identity and this is ego,an idea. What we discover if one looks hard enough that ,there is Awareness,that has been there all the time from birth,the knower behind the knowing process, its always the same right up to death,whereas all that it observes changes. This to me is Buddha mind,The SELF or Brahman in Hinduism ,Christ consciousness in Christianity. This is our true identity and its right here now,yet we miss it because its so close. There is nothing that observes Awareness, therefore it is prior to all manifestation. When it becomes aware of itself,the seeker is no more.SELF knows it SELF......Nirvana ,SELF Realisation. But if the seeker dies before this discovery ,then a rebirth occurs ,not a reincarnation of the same personality, that cannot be,yet some traces of it are apparent in the new birth..hence some children can remember past lives up to a point before the memory fades and the new ego self starts to be dominant . This is my understanding, whoever I am.

@ynot9954

6 жыл бұрын

John Smith I think you nailed it. Beginners usually do, it is easy misunderstand as complete nihilism, therefore no morals, responsibility, compassion, joy, path etc. It's a major trap I think

@JuanPreciado87

Жыл бұрын

So why waste time arguing with each other? If it is clear that it is the same thing that they refer to in their essence.

@jonsmith4669

Жыл бұрын

@@JuanPreciado87 Teaching, a waste of time? no, it passes the time, its interesting to those still seeking to discuss and to receive pointers, even though there's no one really there.....the source of I needs something to do.

Looking at the ancient Pali Nikayas, I came across this passage: "Therefore, with the breakup of the body, the fool fares on to [another] body. Faring on to [another] body, he is not freed from birth, aging and death; not freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; not freed from suffering, I say" (S. ii. 24). It should be obvious that we have our fool faring on to another body after he dies. The problem then becomes what exactly is faring on, is it the ātman or something else? I cannot find a single mention in the Pali Nikayas of the self or ātman faring on. But there is little doubt that it is consciousness or in Sanskrit vijñāna that fares on after the death of the physical body and can descend again into a mother's womb (Mahānidāna Sutta, DN) according to the Buddha. In another discourse at S. ii. 13, the Buddha says: "The nutriment consciousness is a condition for the production of future renewed existence." At S. ii. 65 the Buddha says: "When consciousness is established and has some growth, there is the production of future renewed existence." At S. ii. 101 the Buddha says: "Where there is the growth of volitional formations, there is the production of future renewed existence." Now here in Mahayana Buddhism the Buddha says this about the ātman: "The ātman is the Tathagatagarbha. All beings possess a Buddha Nature: this is what the ātman is. This ātman, from the start, is always covered by innumerable passions (klesha): this is why beings are unable to see it" (Mahaparinirvana-sutra).

@santelang

3 жыл бұрын

Suppose, The Absolute dreaming the entire universe. We are scattered individual dreams with common dreamer. Unless you give up the dream, you can't wake up. So, awakening is stopping of individual dream or becoming. So, you answer, was there really 'atman' in dream? Was there a permanent entity ? No. So, without atman there is transmigration. Path is to give up, give up that doesn't belong to you, the dream the individuality! Now. Don't suppose, it's Reality!

Very profound. Many people forget that His Holiness is one of the greatest Buddhist masters on modern history!

I'm learning about this in class.

I thought I understood these teachings until I heard this and now I’m lost again 😂

@tenzindolma1911

2 жыл бұрын

That's what budhha dharma always do every time, pulling rug out of your feet 😄 keep longing for truth... study and practice

Interesting ideas(@3:40) to understand what happens at the time of death(watch carefully the processes that brain goes through at the time of falling sleep!)......Evan Thompson in his book elaborates what Dalai Lama is talking about here....Worth reading!

The yogacara school have an interesting layout for this subtle mind. They called it the "alaya-vijñāna" or "container consciousness" and that which more often eclipses it, being the "klesha-vijñāna" or "klesha-manas" (accumulation of hindrances and mental obstacles). It is part of the yogacara's eight (6+2) consciousnesses doctrine.

Madyamaka Buddhism (Non-dual Buddhism of Nagarjun) and Advaita Vedanta (Non-dual Intellectual Hinduism) arrive at the same ultimate conclusion; reality is non-dual. For that reason, it's worthwhile to investigate both. Adi Shankaracharya (Hindu "founder" of Advaita as we now have it) was accused of being a Buddhist because the conclusion reached is the "same". The difference is in the language used. I'm not preaching here and I expect no one to take my word for it. Just something to look into for those interested. Sam Harris, by the way, in his book "Waking Up" identifies Madyamaka Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta as the only two religions (as far as he knows) capable of surviving the onslaught of atheistic attacks against religion. I'm paraphrasing here very liberally but the point stands nonetheless.

Consciousness goes on.

🙏🙏🙏 long live his holiness.

@alankuntz6494

2 жыл бұрын

Long LIve The Truth .

I bet it was harder for the lady to work out what His Holiness was saying than the question she herself was originally attempting to address.

@mindrolling24

7 жыл бұрын

Not everyone struggles with listening as you do. I can understand him perfectly even though I only speak one language fluently, while His Holiness has some degree of fluency in four languages.

@helioschan7705

7 жыл бұрын

Yes, what you say is true

...the klesha-vijñāna can be flushed out/away by application "paravritti" (the turning about of consciousness at it's deepest seat) which bears some similarity to the Theravada concept of becoming a stream entrant?

Good humor - thank you

It's so obvious to me, that all people have a sort of 'memory instinct', where we can have very big philosophical thoughts, and be certain we aren't disillusioned, yet we go to tell our companions of what we feel we know, only falling seriously short without necessary language to describe our memories immortal. Our companions grow suspicious and concerned, unable to appreciate what we so desperately wish to share. I take a single lesson, yet I am blind to the far reaching and numerous examples to where it applies itself, because i choose to not let the lesson permeate and make its implications arise when and where it does. Ask me, "why are you going on your trip?" I answer, "to go to arrive at my destination"! We have begun to collectively turn our backs on our journeys, and even on this journey that is life, another simple trip, where finally after the voyage we arrive at a destination. But I don't want to live life to come to death! I want to remember this analogy, so that maybe I might reap some merit from my life's journeying. This man strikes me as just as enlightened as anybody, or should I say, only as 'special' as I might interpret him to be, he seems 'very normal', very well adjusted, not selling anything, very neutral in his desires to be understood. It must be difficult to be called 'your holiness' while trying to humble people, staying humble yourself. Praise to us all here together.

What supposedly transmigrates according to Lord Buddha is the vijñâna/consciousness (this is not the âtman). Also, according to Lord Buddha our atman is not to be identified with the five skandhas (our psycho-physical body of birth and death). Of each one of the five skandhas Lord Buddha said: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self or atman (in Pali it is atta). Lord Buddha did not deny the atman. Lord Buddha said _the atman knows what is true or false_. He said _the atman is the island (dipa) and the refuge_. Later in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra Lord Buddha said: _All beings possess a Buddha Nature: this is what the atman is_.

@eastvillagealliance1357

5 жыл бұрын

I am working updating Buddhist ideas making it as scientic as Possible such as evolution sca!e between humAn & dogs.

@TheGuiltsOfUs

2 жыл бұрын

No-self = Atman

@mujaku

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheGuiltsOfUs "The atman is the Tathagatagarbha. All beings possess a Buddha Nature: this is what the atman is. This atman, from the start, is always covered by innumerable passions (klesha): this is why beings are unable to see it." - Mahaparinirvana-sutra (Etienne Lamotte, The Teaching of Vimalakirti, Eng. trans. by Sara Boin, London: The Pali Text Society, 1976, Introduction, p. lxxvii.)

I am more confused now

Guys don’t write anything against who is englitened. His Holiness Dalai lama is reincarnation Avalokitesvarra (Buddha of Compassion). Let me explains to people who do not understand the query. Self has two - Self- I , I, which is arisen via body identification attachment ( which we call that self ego driven) which leaves after your death - however after it there is the real Self - subtle mind which is eternal. However ultimate realization is Anatta, as Buddha spoke. “Emptiness”

I am very interested in learning more about awareness and meditation at subtle levels, sleep in particular. Can anyone share videos or reading material on this topic? Thanks.

@jpope125

Жыл бұрын

I recommend the book Zen and Comparative Studies by Masao Abe. Also, The Rinzai Way by Meido Moore. the first book is academic, the second is practice-oriented.

That still sounds like a soul or self to me, so we are the mind and survive death?

no-self is not a doctrine it is an experience which can not be proved by intellectually. one need to go stage by stage through meditation on emptiness(Shunyta). the word shunyta means form is emptiness and emptiness is also form. so same goes with self, there is no something so called Atma or soul independently exist and which enters from one body to another.rather there is a mind which is constantly changing..the mind not substantially exist..

@WithmeVerissimusWhostoned

10 жыл бұрын

Too late, it's been already proven intellectually. And in the very same way (read - meaning), but with a set of different words, as Ardent Hollings described in his post.

There is a soul in Buddhism obviously not in the body but there is

If the very subtle mind/body is without beginning and without end then it seems to me that this is conceptually not different from the ātman that is identical with brahman in the Upanishads. If there is a conceptual difference, what is it?

@alankuntz6494

2 жыл бұрын

Tibetan Buddhism is a combination of Bon Shamanism and Hinduism and some kep points of Nagarjuna Mahayana.Shankaracharya almost wiped out Buddhism. Whats refered to as soul or atman are the skhandas -klesa's -ego- habit's and thats not an ever non changing entity.

@allhdmoviescene1294

Жыл бұрын

@@alankuntz6494 during that time bhudhism was already decreasing at fast rate. if nagarjuna and shankaracharya come face to face then non doubt nagarjuna will easily win.

@alankuntz6494

Жыл бұрын

@@allhdmoviescene1294 i'm not sure exactly what you are replying to here and forget what I might have said but i definitely agree with that assessment and opinion.

@Antonio-uc7vn

Жыл бұрын

@@allhdmoviescene1294 70% percent of india were never Buddhists it’s taken out of out of context wrong Sanskrit translation , yeah he had some debates with some Buddhists .. But there was no mass wipeout or anything . But Buddhism were dominant in some cities But Buddhist population were relatively small but they had kings for sure . Naga Arjuna and Sankara would be friends for sure . They won’t fight .

@Antonio-uc7vn

Жыл бұрын

@@alankuntz6494 Brahman is not egoistical in nature , It’s beyond senses , thoughts , pride etc . It’s constant , no beginning nor end . We MUST ERASE EGO to attain that State . It’s described in various texts there should be no ego .

Oh my god this is similar to the concept of shifting and lucid dreaming (Other than this , I really respect his Holiness , my heart feels warm when I hear his Holiness laugh and give us wisdom ). I think what the woman wanted to know ultimately is about tongpa nyi (emptiness)? I don't really know , but that concept in itself is really hard to grasp unless you're enlightened lol , and then there is language barrier too.

I do not understand half of what this guy is saying.

@nutlover3609

4 жыл бұрын

latengocomoburro Work on your English

What if material world is variable and always changing, but spiritual world is permanent? According to book "Journey of Souls" of Michael Newton and to alooot of cases of verifiable out of body experiences during nde, we DO have self. So I don't really see a reason here to believe in buddhist view about lack of self/soul. Hindu view seems to be closer to truth. Only buddhist argument here is: "you can realize that there is no self through meditation" - cool but hindu and people from other religion apparently realizing, through their meditations, that there is a self Another thing in which I disagree with buddhism is - desire. Without desire, we would still be living in caves or even trees. Also, if depression, other illness, drugs, ageing or brain damage can change our desires or even erase them, it's silly to think that death will not do this. Therefore, seems unlikely that desire is a reason why we keep reborning. Soul and spiritual growth seems more logical to me.

Buddhism advocates about nirvana and non-self and advaita advocates about para bramhan and the self. After reading and researching i found some very interesting stuff. According to my analysis Nirvana and para bramhan is one and same. According to vedas and Upanishads para bramhan is not a being but a reality itself. That para bramhan is neither higher nor lower nor middle it is the absolute reality which pervades existence itself from that everything emerges like quantam reality. From quantam reality our physical reality emerges exactly how from para bramhan whole existence emerges. Para bramhan is very subtle reality more subtler than quantum reality. We may say para bramhan as emptiness. On the other hand nirvana is also state of non existence or emptiness. The whole purpose of Enlightenment is annihilate the self and realise and experience that reality or para bramhan or nirvana or emptiness. when we annihilate the self or I ness or our ego only thing will be left is emptiness. emptiness being part of emptiness is ultimate goal for every soul or spirit. Buddha reached that level emptiness. In other words emptiness is even beyond God. Exactly why Buddha never said anything about God. Because he reached level higher than God and deities. OM PARAM ISHWARA NAMAH.🙏 SARVAM KALVIDAM BRAMHA.🙏

Anatman is about what atman is not: an individual soul. Atman is universal and the same as buddha nature. Buddha said there is no reincarnation. All the rest is confusing nonsence to recrute followers that cannot get rid of the idea of reincarnation.

Dalai Lama is talking about alaya vijnana which survives / goes on after death.

There is an eternal self, the self that is made of oxygen, light, water, gaseous states lives on. The self that is our personality and that we defend is the self that is not eternal. We had no language when we were a sperm cell, before we were a sperm cell, we were our fathers body part that wasn't able to produce a sperm cell. So when was this birth of this false self that we all like to satisfy with worldy desires, and praise? THERE IS NO SELF AND THERE IS NO NOT SELF. The truth is beyond words, how can you find ultimate freedom through the mind that arises due to discriminations of worldy objects? The sun doesnt only shine on the good, it shines on all. We are pure consciousness on the deepest level. But clinging to just that level is like clinging to only the physical reality. Mosquitoes don't know why they suck, blood, they just do. Bees dont know why they create honey, they just do. Trees dont think about how they produce oxygen, they just do. We all see ourselves as a wave and not the ocean. So yes, the wave does die in time, but the ocean from which the wave becomes, does not.

Still don't understand..

@ffederel

7 жыл бұрын

It's your karma not to understand! ^^

@shingekinojutsu1706

6 жыл бұрын

Teroine Foma the teaching of Buddha when He said there is no self, is the teaching that says there is no ego, your ego makes you believe that your soul is an individualized being who is not One with the All. The true Self is Buddha nature, which is the awareness that the soul that is your true form is the primordial consciousness that always was and always will be, there is no individuality, we are all One consciousness. The soul or purusa is pure divine consciousness, the soul however trapped in a body is trapped by the egoic mind which limits our consciousness. We are truly not our soul until we liberate ourselves from the bondage of Mara, who is our ego. So when Buddha said there is no Atman, He was saying there is no Atman in the way worldly people believe in It, which is an individualized soul. This is what is called jivatman, a non liberated soul. The true meaning of Atman is you are a liberated soul, that knows everything is an illusion, the only reality is the eternal and infinite oneness of All. Hope this helps, peace, love and blessings.

@pwwka999

6 жыл бұрын

but who/ what reaches enlightenment, nirvana? who/what is reborn ?

i would answer here like this.."by the mere fact that you asked that question ,you are assuming that there is a "SELF" asking that question, there is not. Forget ideas like there was a Self and now it does not exist anymore..existence and none existence are DEPENDENT, so the question is essentially Mute"

All those people, now trapped for eons searching for no-self...

I love this translator but I think His Holiness did not completely catch the question, a clarification from the translator would have been helpful here but in general he's trying to be respectful to Rinpoche. The reason I say this is that His Holiness explains what passes on to the next life i.e. the subtle mind and subtle body however that still sounds like a soul. The second part of the answer to this question should be that in actuality there is no subtle mind and subtle body ultimately, that they also are unreal, and give reasons for it. In many other videos His Holiness gives the complete reason for the anatman view point. Please watch more, it might even be explained in the full length version of this teaching.

Does he mean it is best to cultivate the ability to "lucid dream"?

Ist jemand so Hilfsbereit und kann mir das Übersetzten?

Naked reality is an online video course I am making that tries to modernise and modify the core of all mystical traditions so they can hopefully reach more people/

subtitles help

Translation : Self is just an illusion based on memories and your "conscious" mind. You are made up of matter. There is no self , you can change at any moment in time. This video explains it: kzread.info/dash/bejne/k52Ws6yah5zNmqg.html

Not sure if that the right answer.

H.H. dalai lama good good goodྱ

@sthungraja6221

9 жыл бұрын

sherap gedun How did he became monk who doesn't have any clue what he is saying. He said no self then what will rebirth as conciousness and keep continue so there must be something self which is formless and colourless but he doesn't know what he is talking he is completely lost.

@karlinguk

9 жыл бұрын

sthung raja I have to agree with sthung raja. Why can't he or any Buddhist practitioner provide a easy (or hard) to understand common sense answer to what is a simple question? Why???? NO way was that lady answering the question saitisfied ...but being polite and respectful she wouldn't have dared to say , What do you mean ..I still DONT UNDERSTAND... Dalai Lama is charming friendly and clearly treated like royalty ...but to me and on this particular point he makes no sense and makes it impossible to understand. No self? Not self? ....but who is karma attributed to? Who or what gets reincarnated? No offence intended to anyone! p.s check out Dalai Lma's other video ironically called: Conquer your 'self' (lol)

@mort462

8 жыл бұрын

+sthung raja he didn't say no self. He said: "at a very subtle level, the subtle body and subtle mind, are always together, always combined. That is the basis of the designation of self." The person who uploaded the video said "no self". The woman asking the question said 'no self'. Anatman does not mean 'no self'. We have to be very careful about perverting the Buddha's doctrine. HH Dalai Lama is not doing that.

@johncrocco1128

5 жыл бұрын

@@mort462 your wrong anatman dose mean no self.

@mort462

5 жыл бұрын

@@johncrocco1128 no offence but you can't even spell "does" so I'm not sure you are the best person to talk about Sanskrit grammar.

This is like ,maybe even the same, as the teachings of Spiritual Taoism; it is a process of creating a snap shot pearl(like running a computer diagnostic) at the center(tantien) Pakua, circulating it in the micros-cosmic orbit,and firing it out of the crown chakra as an Astral Spiritual Body. Does this idea of creating a snapshot conflict with Anatta(no self). ? The answer is no as it is only a temporary snapshot, since everything is in flux, in daily life so a fixated permanent self cannot really exist in a transient reality. In the same way, a computer diagnostic has no fixated character.

1:00

E= MC^2

Somebody needs to add subtitles..lol

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?

@tseringdawaLama

6 жыл бұрын

you are very good at grasping! it is this grasping of a self ''concretizing'' the all-pervasive clearlight selfawareness ''silent observer'' makes you reincarnate and go round and round in samsara

@Kubaaa555

5 жыл бұрын

@@tseringdawaLama I doubt it. Because doesn't matter how hard "we graspe to concept of self", it will die within death of brain, same like others ideas/desires/whatever. So if reincarnation exist, then in my opinion, a soul is better explanation.

@michaelbrown7561

Жыл бұрын

Great question!

if one can't perceived the non physical dimension...one shouldn't try to explain, it will causes confusion.....if you're blind, no matter how hard anyone try to explain light, you can't perceive it.....the dalai lama shouldn't try to explain anything that one can't perceived. enlightenment is the same way, it can only perceived and it cannot be understood by our physical senses of knowledge

why cant i understand him, and why do i feel noone else does too but they laugh?

@mindrolling24

7 жыл бұрын

Do you really think that your questions could be answered by anyone but yourself? I understood him and I got the joke at the end too. Maybe watch it again and listen actively, because it is amusing and insightful and worth the effort. Good luck!

Atman = Buddha nature/potential. Period. There is no individual immortal self, only an underlying Self.

@davidbrainerd1520

8 жыл бұрын

+Bhairava Mahakala You just admitted there is a self.

@NBT2469

6 жыл бұрын

And fell into the trap of the dualistic extreme of essentialism/eternalism.

@sandy99797

3 жыл бұрын

There is only brahman everything else is maya

Tenzin holyness ; is your identity a Buddhist monk a teacher or enlightenor and if the anatama signfies nothingness than every human's identity means nothing as well as we live and breath. The begining to the end. Will you remark with reply?

Nam myoho renge kyo

Buddha said: The ātman is the Tathagatagarbha. All beings possess a Buddha Nature: this is what the ātman is. This ātman, from the start, is always covered by innumerable passions (klesha): this is why beings are unable to see it (Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra).

Annata is not referring to the Atma

How can you realize you are actually dreaming..!

Isn't what he is talking about the exact same thing as a self?

@jake4435

8 жыл бұрын

+Yanate1991 no not at all. self is constant and perishable. no-self is the total opposite

@Yanate1991

8 жыл бұрын

Anton Resident So no-self would be fluctuating(?) and immortal? Okay. I think I'll stick to non-religious philosophy...

@jake4435

8 жыл бұрын

you're exactly right about those characteristics. and i'm not sure why you're dismissing the ideas of religious philosophy. hume, kant, schopenhauer, and even plato all discussed philosophical ideas that are also found in buddhist texts

@Yanate1991

8 жыл бұрын

Anton Resident I guess what I mean is I shouldn't treat Buddhism any differently, but I'm very much allergic to the "noself" nihilism that some people believe in. Essentially, Buddhists seem to believe no-one exists for longer than maybe a millisecound, and how the heck this works with immortality, rebirth and especially karma, I have yet to find a good answer to, so that to me is enough to discredit Buddhism. I'd like to think that I have misunderstood Buddhists, but my hopes sink every time I read about it.

@mort462

8 жыл бұрын

I think you are right. Many Buddhists misconstrue Buddhist teachings to negate a self. This is because they are ignorant. In the anatta-lakkhana sutta Buddha states: "Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus." But these people hear the phrase anatta and take it to mean no-self, when it means not self which is an adjective as opposed to an entire negation of a self or "no-self" (nathatta). Not self is that which is subject to birth and death. That is thoughts, feelings, perceptions, forms and consciousness. They are not self, they don't constitute an eternal self. As the Dalai Lama says in this video: "at a very subtle level, the subtle body and subtle mind, are always together, always combined. That is the basis of the designation of self. So that combined subtle body / subtle mind has no beginning and no end." He is referring to the self as the unborn and undying.

Didn't understand anything

In my current view of Buddhism , I am the emotion as all my anger , desire , love , hate , greed etc and "the body" is never related to me .....in Buddhism concept all existence regardless emotion or physical body are all in a constant natural process into the original state .....all existence are actually in a natural process back " home". So the one which dies is the body and the body is never related to me as I am the emotion never the body ......Buddhism is the natural process that I will realize that because of my desire , my greed to own this body , to own others human , to own a house / a car is the cause of my existence and suffering or joy is the nature of my existence . Dear Mr Dalai Lama indeed we have a huge differences of view and for years I had invited you for a debate with me and I hope any teacher who agree with him please contact me for debate solely for my own learning process

@karlinguk

9 жыл бұрын

FOCUS MARINE Thought: Imagine if we were to look out across a distant blurry landscape upon which Bhuddhism sat along with all the other religions/faiths/possibilities etc etc ...and beyond was an horizon past which were mysteries that could not be proven or possibly even truly contemplated by anything or anyone except that ot it which existed there. Supposing now that having listened to say the Dalai Lama's recounting of a wonan sleeping for a week and her 'subtle' mind becoming detached from her body allowing her to travel around (whilst appearing to her son as just in a long long sleep) ...and entertaining that Buddhism may not hold ALL the cards/answers (keep in mind, there are other ideas/beliefs on that landscape being presented as equally or even more valid by billions of humans) ...would it be possible that what this woman was really experiencing was her SOUL (or Spirit ..or divine essence, call it what you like), and infact we all have a SELF ...that part of us that is housed temporarily in a vessel called a earthly human body and which whilst we live on earth is 'influenced' so to speak by the bodies five senses? Listen again to what the DL said ..and ponder the thought: ...is it possible that we do have 'something' which yes, might be for argument sake be called a soul/real self/pure essence/spirit etc etc? For me ..humbly, the more I listen to Buddhists explanation (often extremely academic, confusing, inconsistenr) ..the more I strangely think they are infact ironically reinforcing the notion of a SELF (rather than a 'no-self' or 'non-self'). And that fits with my 'hope' 'belief' ..and yes even subtle 'knowing' that I/we have such a thing as a soul (i.e. the unseen essence within the vessel etc). Your thoughts would be welcomed. Peace

@focusmarine6892

9 жыл бұрын

Karl BHX Dear sir , seems I cant find any reason to agree with you on most of your understanding of Buddhism , seems we are in total different path so because of this , you is a great teacher to me therefore I hope you could focus on a particular question or topic and lets debate on that ..........from your first phase I notice you mentioned " Buddhism is a religion"..........can you share your reason as I do not of the mind that Buddhism is any form of religion .......in my current mind , in human Buddhism is a natural process of realization ....please reply or you could contact me at 1988csee@gmail.com

@karlinguk

9 жыл бұрын

It seems you misunderstand. I did not write with certainty or in an absolute way, instead I simply posed/shared a humble thought. A thought upon which two minds could respectfully debate that's all. I have very very little understanding of Buddhism, and generally don't regard myself as 'all knowing' on all subjects, especially those that have varying/alternate sizeable schools of thought. Whether Buddhism is referred to (in the context under which I first wrote), as a religion or a path or a as you say 'process of realization' matters not as I dare say that amongst even the most ardent Buddhists ranks or academic scholars there'll nodoubt be minor differences of view. For your information though, Googling 'Buddhism' on many occassions describes it as being a religion! Anyway, best wishes.

Imagine calling any man "born eith a belly button Your Holiness". An Enlightened being would never permit themselves to called as such. Tibetan Buddism mirror image of Roman Catholism. I.e. more form than substance.

@SonofSethoitae

3 жыл бұрын

That's not at all true. You very clearly don't know anything about the canon. There are reams of verses in the Theragathas about the sanctity and holiness of the Buddha.

@scouterstu5856

3 жыл бұрын

The word "Holy" is not a Pali word and it is not the equivalent in Western tongues. Like so many words translated by early dualistic theologically minded having no equivalent or none of the practice and experience required to translate from one cultural and philosophy. Having only Western monothesist philosophy background they, in spite of their best efforts, made a mess. Take the word the translated word used for"puna" i.e., virtue for an example. It's hilarious seeing taught in the West by Buddhist as having something to do with morality. In the West the meaning of HOLY applied to a man is heathenism. The American Revolution in part was fought over this very issue. A HOLY Man, is (tongue in cheek) an oxymoron.😉

@SonofSethoitae

3 жыл бұрын

@@scouterstu5856 Why would western protestant views of holiness in relation to man have anything to do with a discussion of Buddhism? The fact that Buddhism's view of holiness is different from that of western tradituons is not the same as Buddhism not having a sense of holiness. Otherwise the suttas wouldn't spend so much time comparing the Buddha to various holy and divine figures of the era and extolling his superior virtues. Why wouldn't there be an equivalent of holy in Pali? They're both Indo-European languages. The Pali word "sante", translated as "holy one" by both Ajahn Thanissaro and Bhikku Bodhi, has a fairly obvious english cognate.

Nobody really knows. All guess work.

He didn't answer al all.

@mamunurrashid5652

7 жыл бұрын

Yes,he did.....

@seonf4370

7 жыл бұрын

Nope, the question was if there is no self what survives death?

Atman is Buddha nature, Anatman is what Buddha nature is not. Atman is true self, impermanent self is called Jiva. Or Jivatman. No denial of Atman, just avoiding wrong definitions.

no self doesn't can't have a subtle body. Bodies flying around or going to other dimensions are still manifestation, productions of the aggregate cluster mind stream personality.It's notAtman or a soul but it is a self.Another mistaken identity .Even Milarepa could slip off into subtle realms and subtle bodies and look what he did before he was a Buddhist.

actually dalai lama talks about remote viewing -star gate project every one could do some research about this and make a connections between dalai lama and this project

😂 😂 😂 hahahaha, great answer!

Mahayana sect of Buddhism worship Buddha as god when Buddha himself didn't belief in god... Irony!!?

The original Buddha would laugh listening to the Dalai Lama

@chriscastino7473

5 жыл бұрын

Original Buddha. lol.

@karmalama8642

5 жыл бұрын

That comment got me too. Don't know if I'm phrasing it right but there are countless buddhas in all three faces of time or something like that?

@furrry6056

5 жыл бұрын

Of course a Buddha would laugh. Have you seen the Dalai Lama laughing? A Buddha would laugh even more, perhaps making a joke: Yo D., Why so serious?!

@SonofSethoitae

3 жыл бұрын

@@furrry6056 Strictly speaking, Buddhas don't laugh. It's one of the qualities given for perfectly enlightened beings. They smile serenely instead.

@furrry6056

3 жыл бұрын

@@SonofSethoitae Hi friend! Do you have a Sutta for reference, where this is made explicit? On the one hand your statement seems plausible, but on the other hand: joy is one of the seven factors of enlightenment and thus should be cultivated. (And joy and serinity are two different things..) Cultivation does not apply to only meditative states - Right Effort tells us we should always strive to dwell in the seven factors. Live with peace, friend. Regards, Bas Bontjas

Very difficult to under him.

So this is my testimony about getting back into the church after 10 years of being out of it. For awhile I was an atheist and then an agnostic, however, God delivered me out of a difficult and strange period of my life that left me without doubt of His existence and goodness. It's a bit of a long read, so bear with me. A couple weeks into February of 2018 I experienced some dreams of a strange nature during a time where I was isolated, depressed, and desperate. I've dealt with anxiety and depression for along time and I was at the end of my rope. I had considered seriously commiting suicide two years ago and when the depression hit this time I couldn't take it anymore. I was searching desperately for something that would allow me to leave the situation I was in. I was addicted to gaming and was very isolated. I also fell heavily into a series of books I was re-reading at the time that I had a great obsession with, The Dark Tower series by Stephen King. A few months into a reread of this series I had a dreams in February 2018 one of which I think was prophetic, having to do with seeing a woman and man in the dream that I later saw the next day while walking and while watching TV. This was a man and woman that I hadn't met or seen before.There were also aspects of the dreams (which I can't easily get into because it's difficult to explain due to the content) that led me to believe that The Dark Tower series having to do with parallel universes was real. I became convinced that there was a world parallel to ours, like the books, that I could gain access to if I used certain objects that I had in my possession . After weird events also began occuring in my home, with my television, and with me, I told my parents about all of it. They were adamant that what I was experiencing was demonic deception and that I should cease reading these books and give myself over to God. Being stubborn and delusional I decided to continue in what I thought was a great discovery and a way out of my situation. Events transpired over the next few days that left me in a state of confusion and despair. My father also ended up in the hospital that week. It wasn't until I began to cry out to Jesus that things began to change. I began to hear from God during this time. I felt like I should rid myself of the books as well as the stuff I had gathered connected to them. I eventually ended up getting rid of all the books and objects connected to them, as well as a lot of other stuff including my games. We were doing some work in my room at the time so luckily I had something to help keep my mind off what had been happening as well as grow in the word from listening to 107.9 on my radio. When we finally returned to church a couple weeks later the sermon and series was about the book of Daniel, some of which has to do with prophetic dreams and visions among other things. I know now that this wasn't a coincidence. Once I started getting involved in the church again and reading the Bible I found out that these things really aren't as uncommon or unbelievable as they seem. My mens bible study at the time had members that had experienced supernatural and amazing things as well I know this isn't going to sound credible if you aren't a Christian. Back when I didn't believe, these stories didn't seem compelling or true to me. However I can tell you that if you reach out to God wholeheartedly he will reveal himself to you. I'd like to ask that if you're going through something right now, some kind of challenge or difficulty that you reach out to God and ask him to help you. Sometimes it may not seem like anything is happening, but if you're willing to hold on and push through you can see him move in your situation in miraculous ways. Here's more about the Gospel here: www.tvcresources.net/resource-library/articles/the-gospel-of-jesus-christ If any of you would like to receive or feel led to receive Jesus Christ as your saviour pray this and believe it with all your heart. ❤️ Dear God, I know that I am a sinner and there is nothing that I can do to save myself. I confess my complete helplessness to forgive my own sin or to work my way to heaven. At this moment I trust Christ alone as the One who bore my sin when He died on the cross. I believe that He did all that will ever be necessary for me to stand in your holy presence. I thank you that Christ was raised from the dead as a guarantee of my own resurrection. As best as I can, I now transfer my trust to Him. I am grateful that He has promised to receive me despite my many sins and failures. Father, I take you at your word. I thank you that I can face death now that you are my Savior. Thank you for the assurance that you will walk with me through the deep valley. Thank you for hearing this prayer. In Jesus’ Name. Amen. Good luck and may God bless you! And remember satan is a spirit of fear.

@thematrix7584

3 жыл бұрын

why do so many people die and be killed and moelsted daily if god is there?

@lookeshdas455

2 жыл бұрын

I think Buddha and Jesus are the same

@tamerofhorses2200

Жыл бұрын

@@thematrix7584 iF GoD reAl whYHy bAd tHinG hAppEN

诸法本为妄，愚者执为我

Very contradictory teachings if you go a little deep on it in my opinion. Buddhism which has it's root in Hinduism says that there is non-self. But Buddhists believe in rebirth then what is that which takes birth again? Some Buddhist traditions assert that "no self" doctrine means that there is no perduring self, but there is avacya (inexpressible) self which migrates from one life to another. This is self contradictory in itself. Either accept it fully or reject it fully. Explain it to me if someone can.

@kubagrazel9554

3 жыл бұрын

You're right. Buddhism does not answer these kinds of questions. I agree with you that Buddhism is internally contradictory in some of its tenets. As in any religion, there are dogmas in Buddhism as well. On the other hand, in the matter of the non-existence of the soul, as stated in the doctrine of Buddhism (atman / anatman), or an attempt to absolutize consciousness as an all-pervasive matrix; such theories are weak, illogical, and self-contradictory. No master will give you a specific answer to such aspects because no human has that knowledge. Those who want to believe believe in the reincarnation or existence of the soul etc., those who do not believe do not believe, and those who have honesty, strength and courage, such are able to admit that they do not know. Someone once told me that some people cannot stand upright on their own, so they need to believe in the existence of a god-loving father ...

@Radheshyam-uh6qg

3 жыл бұрын

@@kubagrazel9554 I would not say that there are 'dogmas' in it but it's different schools (which are many) needs to come at a proper conclusion I think. And obviously theistic religions have their own benefits of being intimate like God being Father, Mother.

@kubagrazel9554

3 жыл бұрын

@@Radheshyam-uh6qg Dogma: a statement accepted as certain and true only by the authority of the person who makes it. Belief in reincarnation is a dogma. Taking the reincarnation claim for granted is actually dogma. There are of course other figures and references to Hinduism that you will find in Buddhism. Regardless of how many different schools of Buddhism are, they are all based on the teachings of Shakyamuni. The fact that someone has the ambition to be a master and establishes his own school is a topic for another discussion. Some people's ego is so big that they really want to be called masters, so they start their own school, for example. The Buddha was human and only human. Yes, he had some wisdom in life, but he could not accept life as it is. Therefore, his attitude and approach to life, in some aspects are immature and resemble a kind of escapism

I admire Buddhism and am a Buddhist myself, but I will stick with the Vedantins and Theosophists on these matters. Their explanation makes much, much more sense. The Buddhist explanation is both difficult to grasp and quite hopeless and cold in a way.

@davidbrainerd1520

8 жыл бұрын

+Yechezkel Brito Asian Buddhists have no clue what Buddha actually taught. In the Dhammapada I find Buddha clearly teaches there is a self. Furthermore, if there wasn't, what would be reincarnated? The whole concept of no-self or no-soul is an obvious non starter. In fact chapter 12 of the Dhammapada is named "Self." Verse 4 "Only the self shelters the self. What shelter could there be outside the self? With oneself thoroughly tamed, one gains a shelter rare." These Asian Buddhists don't even read the earliest Buddhist texts; they just make bullshit up.

@romainvicta9793

8 жыл бұрын

+David Brainerd The Dhammapada is not the sole or main body of Buddhist scripture. There is still the Pali Canon, the Mahayana sutras, the Vinaya, and the Abhidharma. The Dhammapada is just a collection of talks given by the Buddha. It is not a part of any main body of scriptures such as the Tripitaka. Both the Theravada and Mahayana traditions of Buddhism teach the concept of non-self. And neither teach reincarnation. Reincarnation is not a Buddhist belief, because reincarnation implied that there is a soul or a self that incarnates. Rather, the word "rebirth" is a much more accepted term to describe the idea of the "arising and ceasing of consciousness". While the process of rebirth in Buddhism is quite difficult to understand admittedly, it should be reassuring to know that according to the Pali Canon and the Mahayana sutras, only a fully-enlightened Buddha can understand the workings of rebirth. Now, to explain non-self, the Buddha taught that there was no self at a time when philosophers were trying to figure out what is the "true self". The Buddha came to realize that there is no self or soul; only the experience of consciousness. The idea of a self is illusory in nature. it is derived from our conceptualization of experiences. We extrapolate these experiences until we all of a sudden decide " okay, I'm experiencing this, so that must mean my ego or my soul is experiencing this." The Buddha taught that the concept of the self is illogical, as there is no reason to even believe that there is one. All we can do is understand the experience. Also, keep in mind the Buddha was coming from a very mystical part of the world, with multiple cultures and religions that all believed in some type of soul. The Buddha's teaching on impermanence also rejects a permanent, unchanging soul.

@romainvicta9793

8 жыл бұрын

Also, it's important to note that just because something is difficult to understand does not mean you should give up on it entirely. Keep an open mind to all possibilities. Coming from a Western society, we are conditioned to believe that we have a soul, and that when we die, that soul will remain fully intact, and go to heaven; or be reborn into another body, and so on. When the Buddha taught non-self, it was even hard for people in the Indian subcontinent to grasp it. I also don't understand what you think monks would expect to gain from making things up. you can realize anatman for yourself, just as the Buddha did. Those people who promote the belief in a self in Buddhism seem to be clinging to the idea of a self, rather than letting go of it as they should. lots of good comes from abandoning the self and committing to right view. Compassion arises, selflessness arises, and this is all a step further to pure awareness. Based on the teachings of impermanence, sunyata, and anatta/anatman, there doesn't seem to be much room for a self in Buddhism.

@KielBrito

8 жыл бұрын

Thom Crizack The problem with people like you, who come from Western societies, as you say, is that they mistake the individuality for the personality. The idea of non-self does not mean that the individuality is inexistent. For, if so, there would be no justice in the cosmos and no karmic retribution, if there was no individuality to "pay" its karmic debts. Stop mixing the "soul" (personality) for the individuality. Or, if you understand the concept, try to be clear to people when you write. And THERE IS reincarnation in Buddhism. It is a VERY Buddhist concept, for Buddhism is just a reform and purification of Aryan and Vedic ideas, which had become corrupted by the time Shakyamuni made his advent.

@romainvicta9793

8 жыл бұрын

+Yechezkel Brito In the time and place of the Buddha, there were no separate words for "self" or "soul". The two things were seen as identical. The Pali word "atta" is the same as the Sanskrit word "atman", both of which mean "soul/self". Even to this day, the Hindu religion uses the term atman to refer to the soul/self. The Buddha's concept of anatta/anatman literally means "no self, no soul". Also, nowhere does the Buddha ever say that there is no self, but a soul. Like I already mentioned, the soul and self were not differentiated in the time and place of Shakyamuni Buddha. If you have scriptural evidence that says otherwise, you're welcome to share this with me. Also, since the person who responded to this comment cited the Dhammapada as a source to promote self, I will use a verse from the Dhammapada as well; can't believe I forgot to mention this yesterday: "All phenomena (dhammas) are without self; when one sees this with Insight-wisdom, one becomes weary of dukkha (i.e., the skandhas). This is the Path to Purity." (Dhammapada Verse 279) This is on the Three Marks of Existence, which include anicca (impermanence), dukkha (suffering), and anatta/anatman (non-self). I highly doubt you can have Buddhism without the Three Marks of Existence. This teaching is integral to Buddhism. As far as reincarnation, it's not that it's unacceptable to call it that, it's just that rebirth is a more accurate representation of this concept, because, like I said, reincarnation implies that there is a soul that incarnates. Buddhism does not state the existence of any such entity, rather it teaches against it. In the Tathagatagarbha sutras, the Buddha refers to Buddha nature as "the true self" in order to create a sense of understanding for non-Buddhists. "The Buddha nature is in fact not the self. For the sake of [guiding] sentient beings, I describe it as the self." So even back then it was hard for people to understand. I understand that the idea of securing your ego is comforting. This is because we like clinging to things, because they give us satisfaction and comfort. The Buddha taught these things were only temporary (impermanence) and that true happiness comes from giving these things up. According to the Buddha's teaching, we must give up desire, ego, and delusion by following the Eightfold Path, and we may attain liberation. You don't have to do this, but if you're going to call yourself Buddhist, it would make sense that you follow the Buddha's teachings as they are. This is our religion. You don't have to practice it if you do not want to.

original buddhism is really lost today and people find it a bit confusing. if you're a buddhist first start of by reading the vedanta and then again go back to buddhism. things will make much more sense

@MrPrabhuparmeswor

3 жыл бұрын

👌🛐🙏 That's why His Holiness Dalai Lama say: Be a true Buddhist , Be a true Hindu , Be a true Christian , Be a true Muslim stc.

@dhammmaraja

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrPrabhuparmeswor the dalai lama is just a confused and he himself doesn't understand buddhism

He's going to get a shock when hes soul and spirit leave the body .to meet God and still in his sin . he is dreaming

thats basic problem of some buddist.they didnt get teaching of buddha

No-self = Atman

Although I love him and his compassion i respect , but trust me he don't have this real thing called "wisdom".

@VictorLugosi

3 жыл бұрын

sandeep telang neither do you, or you wouldn’t need to say it..

@santelang

3 жыл бұрын

@@VictorLugosi : Oppsi! I don't exist.

if there is an experience of no self than its sure that there is nothing after death, btw experiencing this bullshit on daily bases...

The Dalai Lama is a lost old man who tells nonsense and abuses his undeserved authority. He did not answer the woman's question. He scoffed at telling a silly story. The Dlalai Lama disgraced himself and ridiculed himself. This is not the first time in his life. Pathetic

@dhammmaraja

3 жыл бұрын

agree completely I am glad someone grasp this

@kubagrazel9554

3 жыл бұрын

@@dhammmaraja and I am also glad that someone noticed it too. Unfortunately, the so-called religious and spiritual leaders cannot admit that they do not know something; their own megalomania and fanaticism is their undoing, and of those people who absolutely believe everything they say. I greet you heartily, my friend

@dhammmaraja

3 жыл бұрын

@@kubagrazel9554 I just met someone in reddit who sent me this video because he or she believes everything the Dalai Lama said lol I greet you too...nice to meet you

@tenzindolma1911

2 жыл бұрын

🤣

@Antonio-uc7vn

Жыл бұрын

@@dhammmaraja he explained Clearly , I think you didn’t understand bro .

Dhammapada chapter 12 says there is a self. The Dalai Lamai needs to learn how to read.

@tashidelek5793

8 жыл бұрын

+David Brainerd Buddha refused to answer the question of self or no self because such conclusions don't help in the practise. There is simply the process of change, impermanence and not-self. Some Tibetan buddhists may be deriving too much emphasis from Buddha's particular quote of "annata". A sense of self and a healthy ego is necessary initially for someone who is to go through spiritual process.There is no self in the true sense but until we experience it, it is just a concept. it'll just be an eternal debate .

@davidbrainerd1520

8 жыл бұрын

+Tashi Delek Cite your source for that claim. If he indeed refused to answer hte question its because the questioner was a moron and he didn't want to embarrass him. No self = no reincarnation = no need to escape the cycle of reincarnation = no Buddhism. So if I was Buddha and some IDIOT came to me asking "Is there a self? is there a soul?" when its a billion per cent obvious that to deny these is to deny the whole doctrinal system, I think I'd just give the MORON a funny look too.

@tashidelek5793

8 жыл бұрын

+David Brainerd "No self=no reincarnation". thats right. The majority of us are in the Samsaric cycle of cause and effect and continue to reincarnate time and time again. What we refer to as self is our karmic impressions and tendencies that determine our next reincarnation. When someone attains full realization or becomes enlightened there no longer remains the the experience of the other. only oneness.thats why its said there isn't a separate self. But like i said until such time, as we journey on our spiritual path it helps to have a healthy sense of self. Trying to describe a concept beyond reality without first hand experience actually keeps one firmly rooted in concepts.

@davidbrainerd1520

8 жыл бұрын

+Tashi Delek No. No self also means nothing to go to Nirvana. You I don't think understand what these jackasses are saying. They are not saying there is a self but you should live selflessly. They are saying there positively is not self, period, and never has been. And that is insane.

@derekward3512

8 жыл бұрын

+David Brainerd Vachchhagotta (ascetic), once asked the Buddha whether or not the self existed. Buddha chose not to answer his question and said nothing. When asked why he chose to remain silent, the Buddha explained that if he had said that the self existed, he would have been siding with those Brahmins who believed in the absolute existence of the self, but if he had told Vachchhagotta that the self did not exist, it would have been confusing for Vachchhagotta, who would have thought, 'Previously I had a self, but now I no longer have one.' The Buddha chose to remain silent because he knew Vachchhagotta's predicament. Similarly, when confronted by those who did not believe in rebirth, he taught the existence of the self, whereas to those who believed in the reality of karma, in the fruit of good and bad actions, he taught the doctrine of not-self.

A is not Z, B is not Z, C is not Z, so: Z is not exist. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Brahman path is the Monism of this region, pls, Anatta is the Via Negative Logic use to know the soul. The Soul exist because the Whole exist.

Lucid dreaming

Concept of no self could not be explained in words, I too used to be vedantic and Buddhist at the same time,"no self" could be known in real meditation without meditator,and in that knowing there is no I that knows.And if the mind or I, me or mine came for that then it could make it a theory a idea but actuality happens in now. Main problem here is that when Hinduism diluted with real Buddhism then Tibetan Buddhism school came, in then the mess. Zen and Thervada are real in that sense . sorry to say but let me speak when monks mother fall sleep why someone has not injeted anaesthesia so that it could be known if really she could be out of her body when full dose of anaesthesia was given and if her visiting of various places was not being formulated by brain. Please all be a lamp onto yourself and meditate only then truth will reveal itself otherwise it would be only copy paste of idea.

@eastvillagealliance1357

5 жыл бұрын

Dear daila lama thank you sending writing to gov't of China, Japan. Backing my ideas.