How to Realise the Truth of No Self
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- You may have heard about the truth of no self, or even meditated on it. If there is an inherent "I" then the question to ask is does this abide in the body, or the mind, or is it something beyond both of these.
In this video I discuss the different methods used to come to understand the truth of no self and eventually realise that.
#awakening #meditation #noself #brahman #rupertspira
Addendum: I have a question about the realization of not-self, maybe you have the time and inclination to answer it? Is it possible to realize not-self and then fall back into habitual thinking and identification? I believe I have experienced such cycles several times and this contrast seems particularly painful to me, although of course I am aware that not wanting to have myself is absurd and that this pain does not belong to me either, but it is precisely not wanting to cling to it, i.e. “not clinging”, that is a paradox that I cannot resolve either through action or non-action. My approach is that I invite my demons (attachment, aversion) to tea and ask them to stay longer if they want to , this seems to me to gradually lead to “open vastness” (so-ness) , in a story Milarepa did something similar , leave everything as it is , without turning away?! I hope my post / question makes some sense ?
Hi Mono:
"Is it possible to realize not-self and then fall back into habitual thinking and identification?" Yes Arhats with remainder sometimes fall back into mundane suffering but Bodhisattvas on the path of insight are "irreversible"
" I believe I have experienced such cycles several times" all sentient being from time to time experience flashes of insight, but this isn't equivalent with the attainment of no-self. The attainment of no-self is an incredibly high level of attainment and along with that come seemingly miraculous signs. For example this level (of insight) carries the name "utterly joyous" and that is because someone who has reached this level experiences only bliss. Even for example if you were to skin them alive (that is the example that appears in the texts).
The truth is the profound meaning of the dharma is so incomprehensible that even if we experience a tiny fraction of the results of liberation that seems earth-shakingly significant to us. So on a positive note you should rejoice in the temporary experiences of emptiness that are arising to mind and with that gain renewed vigour to apply yourself to practice.
The caveat is "What ever positive experiences arise never cling to them or consider you work to be over as this will be the greatest obstacle to future progress on the path.
♥💛💙
@@ultimatemeaning Thank you very much for taking the time for this comprehensive answer! I will take it into account and reflect on it in my practice as best I can! 🙏❤
Addendum: Then it can't have been the realization of not-self either, I did experience almost (!) total freedom from suffering during these times, but it wasn't pervasive joy, it was more like pain, sadness etc. no longer represented a disturbance, regardless of the intensity because all sensations, it was simply what it is. But anyway , these times / phases did not make my practice easier , rather quite the opposite , because (as you say) this then became the new source of attachment , how can you not want this (freedom from suffering) ... koan alert ! ... 🙏🖖👋
I’ve experienced no self, or perhaps the opposite of no self: that I was everyone. And I know that people talk about everyone being “one” a lot but I felt it as factual reality. When I looked into people’s faces I thought “wow there’s my face” and if they would cry then I would think “oh no I’m crying” it’s not a theoretical understanding but an actual perception shift. This happened for about a week or two and then stopped. I don’t know how I got there or why it didn’t last.
"This is exactly what it feels like when there is no independent and permanent self, with or without ego delusion." Is this a true statement? 🙏🙏
Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. I read that over 40 years ago. It radically changed my world view. To this very day I regularly recite the Heart Sutra. I found your video very interesting. Thank you.
🙏🙏🙏
Thank you Seachd, the heart sutra isn't only important because of the fundamentally sound reasoning comprised within its verses but also because it is itself a powerful Dharani mantra and has the infinite blessings of the speech of all the Buddhas throughout the three times.🙏🙏🙏
@@ultimatemeaning I am subscribing to your channel because I deeply respect your effort in keeping the dharma alive for the benefit of others. thank you..🙏🙏🙏
If the dharma has life then it abides in the minds of people like you. Thank you so much! @@seachd2268 🙏🙏🙏
Here is a correction for you. You said Dalaï Lama is on the third stage of the path of accumulation and that is why he can experience emptiness. It is on the third path (of the 5 paths) called the path of Seeing that one finally experiences direct non- conceptual emptiness. The path of accumulation is the first of the 5 paths. Yes, you are correct in saying the first path (path of accumulation) is divided into theee levels,: lower, middle, and Higher level.
Thank you I appreciate your style and approach.
Hi, sir. I believe it's important to note that the overwhelming majority of the non-dual instructions set forth by peoples like Nisargadatta and Ramana and the barrrage of unofficial offshoots merely start with this "I am" (definitely in quotes) and then going on to the Self which is no-self. The selfless Self. Starting with the sense of "I am" is basically a preliminary purification or mindfulness practice, and in doing so one may realize that this sense is not who-one-is at all, and that the "I am" and the subsequent "I am"s are just another concept or arising. Being the "I am" is talked about a lot because this sense of "I am" is seen as the original delusion-the root of all delusions-and as you can imagine it takes time for people to get beyond this attachment to self, so it is hammered as to put eyes on this little scamp. This sense of separation gets lifted. This is where the non-dual comes in... this selfless Self. Can't name, label, without opinion, nothing added etc. etc. and yet seen or experienced or sensed in a senseless way, often referred to as pure awareness even beyond any witness; a pure shikantaza or rigpa. This would be, to my best estimate, the fair take on these practices and vocabularies. It is what self inquiry is. We're obsessed with this moving target of the sense of "I am" so we should inquire about it to get that first little ah-ha kick that it is no self at all. And that first ah-ha is really the first step, but many see it as the last step.
Thank you very much ! A very good Speech, especially because it is very practical in my opinion! I have extensively “explored” many pitfalls along the way even if it was not necessarily voluntary , this had the advantage that I learned a lot about failure, which I find quite important, but it also made me wander around for a long time, not because I was looking for the way, but because I thought I had found it. 🙏
We progress through our continual failure- rejoice in imperfection!
@@ultimatemeaning Thank you very much for your answer Lama Choga, that is my practice, even if it is currently more acceptance and openness than joy, but this often merges into each other, everything has its place. Best regards ! 🙏💯😊
Excellent talk! Thank you. Will employ the suggested investigation technique.
"All composed things are like a dream,
a phantom, a drop of dew, a flash of lightning."
And a banana tree 😆🤣😆 but seriously let me know how your meditation goes, some people are naturals!
i lost my head :)@@ultimatemeaning
OK great keep working your way down until your whole body is gone @@mapetlv 😅🤣😂
I couldnt find myself - the closest culprit I could find was an energy in middle of spine. Or another speculation was that i is a feeling/thought/sensation. And this i-thing is like a co-worker who does absolutely nothing for a project, but at the time when project is done acts like he was the most important part for completion of the project. Project in this simile is some other feeling, thought, or even consciousness.
So I changed the question "who am i" to "what is i" - what I found is that I-thing is just a collection of views about how reality should be; a ruleset of what should be desired and what should be pushed away. Those views come to be from strong negative experiences - as it is in case of trauma -, or from pleasant experiences. And as formation of those views depends on experience from outside, then "I" is empty. I as a person am a result of other persons actions, and other persons are also result of other person actions.
The sense of I comes from comparing experience to many grasped views, which means "I" is not solid, uniform, which, again, means it is empty. Without those views there wouldnt be sense of I.
I think I need to investigatate the consciousness of thinking - it might be the constant act of judging, which is needed to form those views which create illusion of i-thing.
This body is result of my parents love, and I should treat this body better if I have any respect for my parents.
Was there an openess? Yes, it was like a jelly with raisins of i-forming-views in it. :)
What am I doing wrong, and how can I fix? @@ultimatemeaning
You have some valid insight there, but my suggestion is that you are relying too much on assumed truths. For example in the statement "formation of ... views depends on experience from outside" we are not discussing a direct experience that can be investigated rather a belief that is formed by conceptual analysis. The conclusion may be metaphorically valid, but because it isn't a product of direct insight, we lack confidence and certainty.
We can search for "I" in contemplation (as above) or we can search for it in meditation. In the latter we cannot find this "I" and so it is easy to jump to the conclusion that this "I" doesn't exist. This is the fabrication of a nihilistic position in regards to the "I"
We can accept that we have a subjective experience (whether or not we understand that experience) and so by observing that experience itself, without coming to conclusions about its nature (here I mean conceptually) we have a more direct and simple method for coming to recognise the "I" or this "awareness" for what it is.
This process takes a lot of diligence and determination, but also requires a certain level of awareness of our tendency to fabrication and assumption. Or else a prior de-conditioning of those tendencies.
Clear as mud I am sure, but that's the best I can do this evening
@@mapetlv
🙏🙏🙏
Wow! that's a lot of knowledge just pouring out. I'll have to re-watch this many times.
Thank you 🤯
Not sure how knowledgeable I am but I hope at least that there may be something of practical use to you and others. Thanks for engaging! 🙏🙏🙏
@@ultimatemeaning is it difficult to imagine how much knowledge you have without clinging to it? I feel like I can’t imagine how does it feel to not knowing something I learned and realised
Knowledge is important as long as it doesn't veil the truth! Thanks for your insight @@albert.33 ♥♥♥
You are greatly knowledgeable. I also admire your humbleness. Though most of all I am humbled myself by your dedication towards replying to comments! Thanks!
realization comes through the destruction of paradigms or perspectives, the fact that the self is ever changing and never truly the same and is always changing if truly examined, will show you that their is no fixed self, but I have not truly escaped self, I have merely seen it's illusory nature, that I can break all my attachments to my thoughts and beliefs but that new attachments, thoughts, and beliefs take their place, the closest I have gotten is changing my mind, the question becomes how I can extend that period of the in between thoughts and belief space, not sure if this is realization, or what I have seemed to find through spiritual practice, maybe death is the ultimate break of perspective, and if you practice it enough maybe one can permanently detach from all concepts and truly escape the limitations of perspective or self.
but my goal has always been to try to view weather or not it's non self or collective consiesness or whatever is, from an objective perspective (which is limted by belief which seems to alter perspective), and I am not sure I can know, yet I keep trying in case it is. so I am not sure what school if any I truly line up with at this point, or if any one path is truly the right one, maybe it's best to cut ones way through the underbrush taking all the lessons each path has to offer as you, as you cross those paths.
@@LucysSonarDreams I wish you the best of luck Lucy, it is difficult to go it alone and there are many pitfalls 🙏🙏🙏
Thank you for sharing your well considered thoughts! ♥
This is so much. Very difficult. Thank you.
I love the idea of studying the dharma like I would a language or science... I've never thought about like that... For me, it's not that I think it's pointless, it seems unattainable... So I quit before trying to avoid failure. Something I'm in therapy for 😂 🙏 thank you for your teaching
Edit: The Indonesian food thing was very specific 😂 is your favorite dish Indonesian? I'd love to know what it is 🤗
This is helpful topic, thank you
🙏♥🙏♥🙏♥
Master I need understand deeper meaning emptiness thanks for information 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
We all need to realise Emptiness ❤❤❤
@@ultimatemeaning yes master i started paying attention for 5 years I have little understanding still very helpful now i learn from you i need deep meditation deeper understanding 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
The you have understood an important point that many miss! @@lassywale
Thank you so much for this explanation.
🙏🙏🙏
Buddhist No Self is The Self in Hinduism. It's two sides of the same coin, they are expressing the same truth. The true Self is the no Self. If everything is yourSelf as Hindus say, that means you have no self. The same way if something is everywhere it really is no where. You could say both it's everywhere or nowhere, being exactly the same experience, but due to practice the flavour and wiring of the same realization is different. Finally both need to be realized and emptied out for freedom from all grounds, as the final step towards the natural state.
Agreed..... nothingness 🙏🏼💜
Interesting position, however this doesn't accommodate the position of the middle way that is absent in the vedic traditions. I would say that quantum uncertainty is more compatible with Buddhism than Hinduism for this very reason. Thank you for sharing 🙏🙏🙏
@@ultimatemeaning The map is not the territory. Even the Buddha said that the Dharma is also empty. Everything will have to be given up. What remains is Truth.
Nevertheless you will not cross the ocean without a chart, but become lost in the waves or crash on the rocks @@LAQ24 ♥♥♥
@@ultimatemeaning That is so. Lots of love
Modern neo Vedantins like Spira do not show the true philosophy of the Advaitic belief that the self appears when there is no “I”. Adi Shankara’s grandfather Guru incorporated much of Buddhist philosophy as did Kashmir Shaivism where Siva tattva is Sunyata. Most modern teachers are a new philosophy that reduces the goal to a pure subjectivity they call the I. Modern spirituality is in bad shape. Thanks again for your helpful teachings and dialogues. So refreshing!!
Hi Brian, I would very much like to learn more about this topic! ♥
@@ultimatemeaning Abhinavagupta the Kashmiri Shavaite master was very open minded. His root guru was Hindu Tantric but he also had Buddhist and Jain gurus. In his tradition the Ultimate becomes two aspects: Consciousness/Sunyata and Energy (the movement within the void - or Ultimate Bliss. Of course one can’t copy traditions or seek to make them equivalent but is somewhat corresponds to the Void/Emtiness/Wisdom and the Upaya/Skillful Means Bliss aspects of vajrayana. The bliss-void indivisible is close to his meaning of the union of shiva and shakti. He also synthethized Yogacara and Vijnanavada, as well as Bodhicitta in his tantric synthesis. Of course many Tantrics will call this Lord Shiva - but the personalization is somewhat a misunderstanding. Also the gods and demigods are are in the cycle of samsara at a certain level in the system like in Buddhism. Adi Shankara’s grandfather guru Gaudapada was criticized in his time for being a “closet”Buddhist cloaking his theory in a Hindu way. Of course at this time there were dialogues between tradition seeking Truth and questioning everything with each other so the divides between “religions” may not have been so insular as they are today. What I am finding helpful in your teachings and the Buddhist teachings right now in my sadhana is the meticulous mapping of consciousness and meditation steps and states which helps one to discriminate where one is, why, and how which is not found as clearly in the Hindu texts. Your videos are helping me as well as some of the Thai Forest tradition Abhidamma. I think what is most missed in the non-Buddhist Indian traditions is Bodhicitta and and the motivation to reach enlightenment to serve the liberation of all beings. I always keep that in the forefront. How can one not, especially if we are all one. Thank you again! Much ❤️
I’m sorry for my poor spelling and grammar. I’m on my phone typing. Gaudapada also held to dependent origination. Most modern teachers claiming the Kashmiri Shaivite tradition are total fakes or unintentionally deluded about their enlightenment so going to the texts is best. I just found the Vimarsha Foundation of Sthaneshwar Timulsina who is and authentic practitioner and scholar from Nepal. Probably the only one. But he is clearly Hindu in his thinking. Just in case that helps … 🙂
@@ultimatemeaning I think my post reply never sent. I’ll try to repeat so if it’s already in the commented on this, please forgive the repetition. Abhinavagupta the great Kashmiri Shaivite master reveals that the ultimate has two aspects. 1. Shiva/Sunyata/Comsciousness and 2. Shakti/the energy movement within the void/Ananda/Bliss. This has correspondences to the Vajrayana teachings on Wisdom/Void/Emptiness and Upaya/Skillfull means/ compassion/ bliss. The union of shiva and shakti principles is akin to the bliss void union. Of course one cannot disrespect traditions and say they are all the same or they are all one - as that is not true however Abhinavagupta, while having his root guru in the Hindu tradition also had Buddhist and Jain gurus and other various teachers. He was deeply influenced by Yogacara and Vijnanavada schools of Buddhism but remained Hindu tantric - envisioning his own idea of Atman and Brahman as in constant unfoldment and change while also remaining ultimately one in itself. Kashmiri Shaivism also hold the gods and demigods of a certain level as within the cycle of samsara as do the Buddhists. Abhinavagupta also talks about Bodhicitta and Mahamudra. Of course he remains Hindu in his total orientation throughout his life. I think that period of time in Indian history was open to dialogues amongst scholars and seekers of the Truth who debated each other while remaining respectful. It seems they were willing to adjust beliefs based on logic and dialogue rather than dogmatism. At least in some areas. Perhaps the religions weren’t so bounded and insular as they are today. At least in the mystics who sought the Turth about ultimate reality. In terms of the teachings of Adi Shankara he was also influenced by Buddhism and his grandfather guru was accused of being a Buddhist in disguised. He (Gaudapada held to dependent origination among other things in common with his Buddhist brothers and sisters). I have been studying more Buddhism. I enjoy your teachings and the teachings of the Thai Forest Abhidamma. I am finding the Buddhist teachings on the mappings of consciousness and meticulous details to the how, why, and what constitutes various states of mediation and stages of the path to be most helpful as the Hindu philosophy doesn’t focus as much on these aspects along with the hindrances, delineating the jhanas and where one gets stuck, etc. Also the other traditions don’t emphasize Bodhicitta which I believe is foundational and leaves any practice bereft of true motivation. If we are all one it only makes sense that the desire would arise in the heart to become enlightened in order to serve the liberation of beings. Thank you again for your teachings and I hope to resolve some stuck-ness in my sadhana. I’m sorry for the spelling and grammar mistakes. I’m typing on my phone which doesn’t seem to want to cooperate with spelling. Thanks again and Much ❤️
@@brianbuczynski3555 That is very helpful Brian I will look it up thank you so much! 🙏🙏🙏
Greetings, thanks for the video. I'm not very educated about this tradition so unfortunately my question is very naive and maybe shallow. Do you interpret the story about the master who passed their hand through the pillar to be "truth". Not asking for a friend.
I know i haven't realized no-self because I cant fathom this: if theres no-self them WHO is realizing that? I mean, if there is no one to realize no self, who realizes it? If I realize it, then obviously I didn't because still exists an I. It's paradoxical...
I have a question that bothers me for long: Do you think it is a healthy goal to deconstruct your sense of self permanently? Abiding permanently in nonduality in centerless awareness? Isn't it healthy to have a certain sense of self? Isn't it more healthy to integrate no-self experiences into a lucid form of self that can benefit others? Thanks you in advance!
I wonder if the notion of "Atman" ("pure consciousness") and emptiness might refer in the end to the same. Atman is described as eternal, unchanging, all pervading etc. If all objects are empty, emptiness might be all pervading too. And it might also not change (how would it be possible for emptiness to change after all?). Maybe in Buddhas time people started to cling on this empty consciousness, turning it into something, into an idea, so it had to be dismissed ...
Hi J, an extremely profound topic, but there are literally volumes and volumes of text explaining all the reasons why the Hindu concept of an Atman isn't the same as the teachings on Emptiness (and this is presented in terms of the Vedic tradition's own presentation) and why Buddhism refutes the idea of Atman.
One of the main problems is the neo vedanta (primarily by Western influence) re-brands the entire hindu tradition, in a way that makes it superficially similar to the Buddhist tenet and also more digestible to Western followers. The end result is that the modern presentation of the Hindu view is a mish mash of different and often contradictory པོསིཏིོནས. For example most modern yoga teachers make no distinction between Samkhya philosophy and the Vedic tradition.
Also Emptiness itself is taught to be empty of nature (see teaching on the 16 types of emptiness) Also the level of clinging to reality is successively reduced as you progress through the different schools of Buddhism. The foundational schools that teach consciousness is made of discrete and existent quantum time moments do not also accept the truth of emptiness for example.
Hope this help
🙏🙏🙏
Thank you. It's a huge and complex topic, I know. I will have a look into Chandrakiris Madhyamakavatara for further research. But the mish mash is not just a modern phenomena, as many Indian school of thoughts have influenced each other. For example Yoga philosophy was influenced by Samkhya and also Abidharma. And finally in Yoga it's about dissolving the clinging to prakriti.
Especially when comparing tenets it's crucial to make very clear what terms actually refer to what. Often confusion comes up when people think they are talking about the same thing (or different things), while they're not.
Yes J that is a valid point, because we are often using the same terms to talk about very different things. This investigation of direct perception is about going beyond terminology, and directly to the source. Thanks for your insight @@j.9383 🙏🙏🙏
Unfortunately I believe it isn't about the content being invalid or bad translations. Rather it is that this knowledge won't lead to any profits.
One of the things that makes the logical moves in Nagarjuna's work and emptiness in general difficult for me to accept is that there is already an assumption of the terms of the conversation, or rather a crystalized image of the concepts. To use your example, the present is empty because it consists of the meeting point between the past and the future, both of which do not exist on their own terms. But why do we have to assume that the we have a preliminarily correct framing of time with the concepts of past and future? Emptiness theoreticians seem to want to overcome the opacity of concepts by assuming and using other concepts. In every proof of emptiness of a particular concept in the Madhyamika, they begin with a certain framing of the problem, such as framing worldly events in terms of stillness and motion. But what if we have gone wrong in the very beginning, the very beginning of framing the problem(s) itself? There is no need, for example, to think of anything in terms of stillness or motion, and therefore the conceptual emptiness that is derived from an analysis of those concepts becomes unnecessary. I know that there is the common claim that emptiness itself is dependent and therefor empty, but I dont think this resolves the core issue, it merely develops a line of thought in the same linear direction. Emptiness is supposed to "undo" our conventional conceptual understandings, but instead it seems to be a result of those understandings, rather than a total upheavel. The beauty of leaving these base concepts alone, such as motion and stillness, rather than trying to break them down, is that it allows us to admit that we are using these concepts only as partially understood concepts, concepts which have a hidden aspect to them which makes them resist total analysis and resist being able to clearly demonstrate emptiness or dependendent origination. The most basic assumption of Nagarjuna is that we can know the concepts we use enough to say something ultimate about them, and that these concepts can be understood and analyzed in isolation from their full contexts. In actuality, we dont even know why we use the concepts we use, and we don't know what they are in themselves. the meaning of concepts are only partial when we scrutinize them in isolation or in opposition to their binaries or contradictions. To assume that word, concepts, and terms are something apart from how they integrate into the whole of thought is to make an atomistic fallacy, to presuppose that concepts have meaning apart from their relations and their meanings can be reflectively known. If knowing is instead unreflective (which is to say being unable to say definitively how or why we know things, and that knowledge is a one way rather than two way street) then we can't have a sufficient or complete knowledge of knowledge. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that Mahayana seems potentially too invested in the power of reflection, and that it treats thought itself like a phenomena. But the essence of thought is the hidden cause of thought, it does not itself appear as phenomena to be reflectively grasped.
it seems like you’re coming to nāgārjuna’s conclusions while attempting to refute him. you mention that nāgārjuna “[assuming] that words, concepts, and terms are something apart from how they integrate into the whole of thought is to make an atomistic fallacy, to presuppose that concepts have meaning apart from their relations and their meanings can be reflexively known,” but is this not precisely what nāgārjuna demonstrates through the dependent arising/emptiness teaching?
you make a valid point about the efficacy/validity of reasoning in deducing emptiness, “there is no need, for example, to think of anything in terms of stillness and motion, and therefore the conceptual emptiness that is derived from an analysis of these concepts becomes unnecessary.” but this is, again, precisely what the emptiness teaching implies. while it is true that ultimately reasoning itself depends on the fabrication of conceptual entities, this is something that can be realized through reason. reasoning can be compared to a fire that extinguishes itself as it burns its fuel. further, it was already stated from the outset that this is so:
“Whatever arises interdependently, that is explained to be emptiness. That being a dependent designation is itself the Middle Way.”
perhaps, you’re advanced and you don’t need the support of rational analysis, but analysis doesn’t contradict the conclusions you’ve come to here, quite the opposite, in fact.
where i would challenge you is this being so because there is something hidden in thought that subverts reason, an essence, rather than a structural necessity of conceptualization itself. in other words, it’s not that there’s something hidden in thought, per se, but the fact that concepts are contextual, that they are framed by other concepts, they are partial, limited, conditioned, etc. if i could grant that there was an essence that subverts thought, i could only say it’s because of the non-discursive nature of reality itself, but even that feels like saying too much.
1. This example of the three times isn't taken from Nagajuna but from a non-dual CZcamsr named David McDonald and I was using it as an example of a trite argument, and to my mind it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the true nature.
2. I suggest looking at Chandrakirti for this point about stillness and motion, because I suspect that you have misunderstood the argument. But maybe I have got it wrong, so if you could explain how you interpret this point, then I can respond directly to that.
3. My own understanding of emptiness fits in well with quantum theory and solves a lot of paradoxical issues.
4. Nagajuna's position is what is called an non implicative negation and so I am not sure how you arrive at positivist statements by Nagajuna, but again it would be helpful if you present your interpretation of the meaning of emptiness and then I will be better placed to give a relevant response
🙏🙏🙏
@@internetdiogenes thanks for the reply! reading myself over, i realized i should have done a better job separating my first two arguments. but you did a good job distinguishing them yourself (my argument of the non-necessity of the preliminary concepts vs. the use of those concepts without there being ready-made definitions of them).
"it seems like you’re coming to nāgārjuna’s conclusions while attempting to refute him." in a way, yes. to reuse the example, the analysis of stillness and motion depends on treating them first as having independent origination or fixed essences, and then demonstrating dependent origination. but the difference between starting with and ending up with emptiness is that in the former case, emptiness cannot itself be considered as empty, whereas in the latter case, emptiness is shown to have dependent origination in "non-real" concepts. so i think the only way to retain the truth of emptiness is to begin with it, and doing so makes it at once unfalsifiable/unscientific and absolutely true. if i may draw an analogy in western philosophy, this is similar to the conflict between hegel and francois laruelle. hegel thinks the absolute idea must be constructed progressively through concepts which are progressively overcome, culminating into the absolute idea. this "proves" the absolute idea, but at the cost of rendering it completely unsaturated, like a husk. hegel thinks you can begin with less, and end up with more (or something more true), and he subordinates the absolute idea to contingent concepts. not only that, but like nagarjuna, he crystalizes those concepts in order to do anything definitive with them. laruelle on the other hand begins with the absolute idea (he calls it the One), which for him, is the only way to secure an irrevocable permanence. instead of being something constructed by proofs, lesser concepts, and so on, it is identified as the cause of proofs and lesser concepts, and which itself is never in turn affected. i hope this wasn't too vague, but it's a barebones picture of what i think is at stake in both western and eastern reasoning, the assumption that we can begin with less and end up with more. another practical implication of the alternative approach is that the lesser concepts are no longer seen as concepts to be overcome or be mediated, but concepts to use as gifts, or as givens, from the absolute. so there is no more question of a distinction between the conventional versus the ultimate aspects of concepts, because their ultimate aspects cannot be arrived at through mediation. rather, their ultimate aspects are in their cause.
"if i could grant that there was an essence that subverts thought, i could only say it’s because of the non-discursive nature of reality itself, but even that feels like saying too much." to invoke some western philosophy once more, i don't think it's necessary to frame my point in a kantian way. it's actually the exact opposite of kant. kant thinks that transcendental thought is what we have the most "access" to, we are able to clearly demarcate categories and there is no danger in running up against noumena (if you are unfamiliar, that just means the concealed aspect of an object). human finitude for kant instead lies in our inability to access the empirical or the outside world without first passing through our mental filters (and those mental filters are transparently known). so for kant, opacity and obscurity lies in the external world, and transparency lies in the internal world. i would flip this around. we can say that nothing hides in the external world and that everything thought to be hidden appears. but what can never appear is the very act of appearing itself, phenomenality itself. the essence of appearance, not to be confused with the essences behind the appearance of objects, is the cause of the unfolding of appearance, but is itself not what appears. what we see is phenomena, what appears, but we don't see the act of appearing as such, we see what the act gives us in phenomena. kant thinks that we can sufficiently describe the finitude of thought, in a way that is infinitely transparent and reflexive, but what i'm suggesting is that the very act of thinking is already a delimitation in relation to the essence of thought, before we are even able to articulate the categories of human finitude. it could be the case that the entire external world has a perfect correspondence with our thinking, which would be hegel's position, but my claim is that thought (and i've been using the term appearance as an analogous term) does not have a perfect correspondence to itself. instead, thought is receptive and not reflective in relation to its essence. there is much to elaborate and demonstrate, but it should at least an adequate characterization my position on this matter.
@@ultimatemeaning thanks for the response!
"I was using it as an example of a trite argument, and to my mind it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the true nature." thanks for the clarification. though i know he talks about these concepts in the MMK, i apologize if i alluded to that exact formulation being nagarjuna's thought. but i believe you have expressed that even nagarjuna's actual written thought has a limitation in terms of what we can get out of it. not to say that any of it is trite, but that it is limited to mere conceptual understanding, which i probably agree with.
"I suggest looking at Chandrakirti for this point about stillness and motion, because I suspect that you have misunderstood the argument. But maybe I have got it wrong, so if you could explain how you interpret this point, then I can respond directly to that." i was just using that specific section of the MMK as an example that mirrors the structure of the other sections and arguments. all of the arguments seem to need crystalized determinations of the concepts in order to say something definitive about them. the MMK in other words is against vagueness. emptiness itself might allude to vagueness, but i'm talking about the vagueness in the initial terms. a vagueness that is so strong as to inhibit us from making definitive claims about the terms, and deriving any claims of dependent origination about them. i think the MMK relies completely on the transparency of concepts, and overlooks the possibility that they are vague to begin with, and not just "proven" to be vague by exploiting their initial clarity (which i claim does not exist).
" it would be helpful if you present your interpretation of the meaning of emptiness" i take emptiness to mean empty of intrinsic nature. and my argument is that if concepts are "already" empty of intrinsic nature, it is impossible to show *how* they are empty (of intrinsic nature). if concepts already come to us as "empty" we cannot transparently pick them apart in order to demonstrate their emptiness. i elaborated on this in my reply to internetdiogenes. thank you for entertaining my curiosities. i think Nagarjuna is one of the greatest philosophers of all time. my only gripe with him is a possible over-reliance on reason and transparency.
I would suggest that this understanding comes from taking emptiness to be synonymous with non existence. For example if we assume a concept to be devoid of any meaning (the meaning or nature is non existent) then all concepts would be equal and as such could not be analysed.
There are two basic divisions when it comes to the Madhyamika, the consequentialist and the and the autonomists. The former only use the arguments of others to demonstrate their conceptual fallacies and by this bring their understanding closer to the ultimate truth (that is inexpressible in terms of linguistics). They do not assert their own logical arguments and so are called non assertive negationists. As such they do not make any assertive statements about reality. This is associated with the second turning of the wheel of dharma that teaches primarily emptiness, and one can say that this is the school followed by the Gelugpas.
The Latter accepts the use of logical arguments in conventional terms and also asserts the divisibility of the provisional (conventional) and ultimate truth. The view is said to be the view of the third turning of the wheel of dharma or the teachings on "lack of characteristics".
Although it would seem that these are different positions, they are merely teaching the same dharma from different perspectives. The Consequentialists teach from the side of emptiness that is the remedy to clinging to the extreme of existence, and the Autonomists teach from the perspective of the appearing aspect that is the remedy to nihilism or non existence.
My own understanding comes from the path of direct investigation where we look at mind, thoughts and appearances as they arise to the subjective consciousness. The resultant practice is what I called the middle way of meditation from the middle way of conduct, view and meditation, see:
czcams.com/video/ZnoX8cPfhEE/video.htmlsi=ZOKu3Axpde9kUoMF
What is recognised or understood from this investigation is the nature of phenomena that is robust and impervious to refutation by the consequential and logical reasonings of these two schools of Madhyamika.
So based on "mere recognition" of this truth I have a reference point for understanding the nature of reality. If valid then this position should not be contradicted by modern theory such as quantum mechanics and relativity either. My experience so far is that there is no such contradiction.
Sorry for the long answer but it is a difficult topic. It might be more productive to narrow the field of discussion to make any comments and responses less generalised and more specific.
@@WackSmackAttack
🙏🙏🙏
only the ego deals in experience.
in knowledge.
only the ego.
❤
Yes I agree, the level of experience is very much associated with the belief in a self (ego)
I suggest that the "ego" is an unsubstantiated concept imputed on the 5 aggregates @LifesInsight
Quantum uncertainty suggests that there are multiple/infinite copies of "you" and this is a position that is widely held by many physicists @LifesInsight
Sorry what does this mean? "So how does that to 'ego'?" I don't understand. Thanks @LifesInsight
I suggested that the ego idoesn't exist but is a mere conceptual imputation. Your suggestion was that there is only one you. I suggest that there isn't only one "you". if you say "you" is the identification with a self then this is different moment to moment and never remains fixed at any time. At times our self image is more or less similar ans at other times there can be a drastic change in this perception. But it is never fixed and also isn't merely associated with one associated aspect of mind, body, or life force. @LifesInsight
May I respectfully ask whether you are speaking from experience about emptiness, no self or realization?
Thank you.
Hi mpavoreal, of course you may ask. My point is that we too easily claim understanding, experience, or realisation, and that this is a sign that us Westerners are basically "newbies" to spirituality and so make these beginner mistakes.
Further I think it would be utterly ridiculous for me to claim realisation of no self or emptiness, for the very reasons that I have stated in several of my videos. see:
czcams.com/video/vSiM8K-6Q50/video.htmlsi=-YeLDMHA5CqYGgDM
In general then my reference point for any statement I make about the spiritual path is what is called "mere recognition of the true nature", but there are few people in the West who would even understand what that means and how that is significant. For example if I say "I have mere recognition" you may think "well that's nothing special" but for me it is quite embarrassing, because it sounds incredibly proud.
The implications of this claim mean that I have no doubt about this true nature and what (ultimately) is authentic meditation, and consequentially I can readily identify "false" or "misrepresented" statements about the path and spiritual awakening, etc., ... .
Anyway this is a big topic and not one that can be given any justice in the comment section.
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.
🙏🙏🙏
Thank you!
No, thank you! I prefer challenging comments! @@mpavoreal 🙏🙏🙏
Can you recommend a translation of the prasannapadā?
Hi One Mosaic, we had a lot of trouble with good English translations, and for the Auto Commentary we ended up creating our own. Now we study everything directly in the Tibetan and I haven't seen a good translation of Lucid word (word commentary to the root verses).
There is a short section in Karl Brunnholzl's Madhyamakavatara_The-Karmapa's-Middle-Way, and I guess if anyone knows of a good translation he would. I can ask him if you like?
Also I found this paper "MATERIALS FOR A MADHYAMIKA CRITIQUE OF FOUNDATIONALISM: AN ANNOTATED TRANSLATION OF PRASANNAPADA 55.11 TO 75.13 DAN ARNOLD" haven't read through it yet but it sounds promising.(found at Heidelberg University journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/download/8968/2861)
What do you think about this word commentary by Chadrakirti, there is a lot of speculation surrounding it?
Hope this helps
🙏🙏🙏
"I am enlightened." Bit of a giveaway really....
The concept of the emptiness of all phenomena was difficult for me to understand until I read about King Milinda’s chariot and compared the example to the ship of Theseus.
On a completely different topic, I was wondering if jhanas are a part of Tibetan Buddhist beliefs? I read (MN 36) that the Buddha became enlightened after remembering that he had experience with the first(?) jhana while young and reexperienced it and the remaining rupa jhanas (he had already previously gained expertise with the arupa jhanas).
According to the Dhyana (Jhana) Sutra the Buddha rejected the 4 absorptions saying that they did not lead to enlightenment. In general in the Mahayana we say that these perceptionless states are to be avoided because they cut one of from benefiting sentient beings. It is said that noble beings (bodhisattvas) do not seek rebirth in the formless realms (arupa jhanas) although I have heard that there is some debate about this in the hinayana (theraveda)
@@ultimatemeaning Thank you for your response. That’s very interesting. My admittedly naive reading of MN 36 certainly gives me the impression that the Buddha realized that jhana is the path to awakening. Would you be so kind as to tell me where I am going astray?
"I thought: 'I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then - quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities - I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Could that be the path to Awakening?' Then following on that memory came the realization: 'That is the path to Awakening.'
Your not wrong there this is the 1st absorption of the form realm and not the 1st perceptionless absorption of the formless realm.
And the way we study this topic is it is a progression from 1. Preparatory stage of the first dhyana 2. Main practice 3. Special practice. Like that identifying the faults of the first dhyana and then progressing onto the 2nd etc, until one reaches the path of insight and then the 16 instances of the wisdom of the path of insight.
All this is documented in detail in Mipham Rinpiche's text Gateway to knowledge and the Adhidharma of the Mahayana tradition. (Makes my head spin)
The reference to the formless absorptions is regarding the Buddhas life story when he was following vedic teachers Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramputta, see this interesting article that refers to the Maha Saccaka you quoted
www.wildmind.org/blogs/on-practice/the-buddhas-radical-path-of-jhana
🙏🙏🙏@@hansenmarc
@@ultimatemeaning Thank you for the details and the reference as well. I will take a look at it. That’s my understanding too, that the Buddha mastered the formless jhanas first, but didn’t become awakened until he began practicing the 1st-4th jhanas beginning with the experience he remembered from his childhood.
I am currently studying the Abhidarma using an in-depth CZcams series, and there are a lot of details and relationships to understand. I previously practiced the path of insight based on Mahasi Sayadaw’s instruction. I thought I was in the knowledge of equanimity about formations stage when I experienced a very short blackout or loss of consciousness that lasted maybe a third of a second or so. It was followed by what seemed like an extremely fast flash of light as my brain came back online. It felt like my brain was an old computer that has just been rebooted. I think this was a cessation, but I’m not certain. My experience didn’t match the descriptions I’ve read of the path knowledge and fruition knowledge, so I’m not sure what I should be doing now to keep making progress. That’s why I thought I would try the rupa jhanas.
Ha ha ha, yes the old brain needs to be rebooted from time to time, I think mine has a computer virus. ha ha ha.
The general advice is that it is always good to keep studying (along side any practice you are doing) and I would suggest reading the Root Verses of the Middle Way and the Heart Sutra. This may give you some insight into the meaning of the Form and Formless realms.
Best Wishes @@hansenmarc
🙏🙏🙏
I don't believe that Rupert Spira is referring to a personal I (nor was Ramana Maharshi). Rupert has said, " I don't believe that I exist." I think their point is that the personal I does not exist... only an ultimate I. What that ultimate I is,...is elusive. God? The Tao? The Dharmakaya???
Whether that is a personal "I" or ultimate "I" of God (I know Rupert refers to God a lot) then it is basically the same in terms of this discussion- Also as far as I have read then Ramana Maharshi is a follower of the Hindu tradition and his teachings are well represented by the scholar Ramesh Balsekar, and in that tradition one of the cornerstone principles is the notion of an Atman and a Brahman. NB. the term we use in Tibetan བདག (bdag) means "self", "identity", "and also is a contracted form of the term "soul " and the notion of these is refuted in all levels of Buddhism.
🙏🙏🙏
Dear Sir:
1. I do hope that your mother is feeling better.
2. What is the "principle" that enables you to assert "the emptiness of self"? If such a principle exists - "what" "marks" the border between that principle and the "emptiness"? If there is such a "border", what is that border? Is that part of the "emptiness" or of the "asserting principle" or something different from both of them?
Thank you.
Hello Ravindra, nice to hear from you. My dad has CoVid right now but luckily Mom is still negative, the last time she got it she ended up in hospital.
I don't believe I asserted the emptiness of the self in this video. I was merely suggesting the various different methods one could use to investigate whether or not the self exists, and further suggested that direct investigation was a powerful tool in this investigation.
My own understanding comes from the use of direct perception, that revealed some interesting results, and these have acted to erode my previously held assumptions about self, mind, thoughts and appearances.
And it is because of this that I recommend people to use this technique in their own contemplation of the nature of reality.
Best Wishes
🙏🙏🙏
@@ultimatemeaning Dear Sir: 1. I am sorry to hear about your father's illness. I pray for his speedy and uneventful recovery.
2. I am sorry if I have not understood you correctly.
3. Let me start by understanding what you mean by the term Self in the title of your video - "How to Realize the Truth of No Self". (I am assuming that you have interest in carrying on with me, regarding this. If not, please let me know and I will stop).
1. Dad is 91 but he is still strong and also Mother is testing negative so that is promising.
2. It may be that I have misunderstood your point and so I will attempt to answer the original question. In terms of Nagajuna's system then emptiness is established through non assertive negation and so is not established by logical positivist statements. If that is the case then there is no "first principle" or primary assumptions needed to established this truth. Chandrakirti 's Entering the Middle Way is the clearest example of this approach. The Autonomist school (Bavavikeka, et al.), (if such a thing ever actually existed) is said to accept the use of logical syllogism to establish conventional truth and also differentiates between conventional truth and ultimate truth, a position that is refuted by the Consequentialists.
And so there is no border between the principles of emptiness and the ontological truth of emptiness (N.B. emptiness itself is held to be empty, see 16 emptinesses) it is merely that we hold contrary beliefs about the true nature of phenomena and as a consequence our statements about "reality" a susceptible to scrutiny by the use of logic and subsequently collapse under investigation.
Having said that then Nagajuna does make logically positive statements from time to time, for example it is stated that- all composite phenomena arising in dependence of causes and conditions are taught to be empty, and further because they arise in dependence of causes and conditions (themselves likewise empty of nature) they are able to appear. So from this one could say that there are these first principles that phenomena arise (which seems to be refuted by Nagajuna in the root verses) and that things appear. My own position is that the only thing that can be said with absolute certainty is that "stuff appears" to subjective awareness, but what exactly is "subjective awareness" and "stuff" is a contentious point. But I think if we are honest we can all agree that we perceive something and not nothing.
Again my reference point is the direct investigation of phenomena (in particular mind, thoughts and appearances) and by that I have some certainty about how these thing conform with the "principle" of emptiness.
3. Self or བདག in the Tibetan means identity, or self but also covers the notion of a soul, atman, or ego.
@@ravindramurthy3486
🙏🙏🙏
@@ultimatemeaning Dear Sir: I hope your dad has recovered and that you are all keeping well.
Here are my responses/thoughts:
As you are aware, we are trying to communicate about something that is prior to communication and is simply intuited in 'silence'. Even a single letter uttered or written about 'it' will "mask" the very thing we are trying to convey. But on a platform such as this, we have no choice but to proceed with written communication, while recognizing the inherent limitations of " communication" in conveying what we are trying to convey. For purposes of clarity, I have split up my responses into parts.
@@ultimatemeaning First of all, thank you for clarifying how some of the terms are used in Tibetian. This is the first step in understanding each other's position. The terminology in Advaita Vedanta, the lone nondual philosophy of the world, is as follows: 1. ATMAN / SELF / I are synonyms and represent that IMPERSONAL REALITY OF EXISTENCE/CONSCIOUSNESS/PEACE. This is the SELF-EVIDENT, ABSOLUTE whose existence can never be doubted or even imagined. 2. ego or me-notion, is a thought which identifies itself with a particular psychosomatic apparatus in a state of apparent duality - 3. " I " is eternal/infinite whereas " me " is ephemeral and finite with borrowed reality from " I ".
Wouldn't claiming to be a teacher prove that you are not a teacher? You identify with something in that statement. The idea of my higher self is very misleading. The statement of "my higher self" is still personal. To say the higher self is more true, but it still puts a label on it. How can awareness be labeled? It is not a thing. The exercise that helped me explore this is sensing the whole body with the Sufi idea of what I see is not me. We identify with our head because most of our senses eminate from it. If you sense the whole body long enough your experience will be from a middle point in your torso. The Egyptians thought the soul lived above the liver and I think it was because of this sensing point of perspective. If you sit long enough in this perspective though you will see that this point feels more like it is behind this central point so then is the point of perspective outside my body? If I keep chasing this point of perspective it keeps moving back. My awareness can't turn around and look at itself. All I can do is keep moving back trying to end up at this central point of awareness. The purpose of this exercise is to fail because you can never end up at the place where awareness manifests from but it teaches you that you don't exist in this world. How can awareness be yours? Don't all living things poses the same awareness you have? Can you pin down that awareness and say there right there that's it!?
I try not to claim to be anything because I have learned the trap of identification. I try not to claim to know anything because of this same predicament. I will identify with being a student of enlightenment and know that I will never graduate as long as I am in this earth school. It feels like no matter how high I get I still won't have that ultimate realization until my final moment of awakening. The time when "I am" no more. I think I am that I am is about as far back as one can get and still operate in this world. Try doing any kind of worldly tasks and move beyond I am and you will find yourself falling into a catatonic state!😂
Thank you. I have subscribed to your channel. Doug really appreciates your videos! Coming from the Fourth Way his understanding of Buddhism is limited but he loves seeing the similarities in all the Ways to liberation. ❤
there is a self, its consciousness not the body
but i would say consciousness is not universal its solipsistic
there is no direct evidence any other person has feelings, thoughts, or consciousness
other people are just patterns of color and sound that appear and disappear in this one consciousness here now
If the self is consciousness, then does that mean that self is sometimes the sound of a car, sometimes a red flower, sometimes the smell of burnt coffee, etc. , ... . If so then that means that self is not one fixed things but is continuously changing, is that right? If so then self isn't something substantial or real, because real entities are not composite phenomena. Composite entities are ephemeral.
@@ultimatemeaning sound of a car? the sound is consciousness.
red of a flower? the red is consciousness
smell of coffee? the smell is consciousness
the one formless whole consciousness here now is the large spiritual self behind all the sensations.
the car, flower, and coffee are only in the mind. drop the mind and find the self
Before you can drop the mind you have to find it. @@mikelisteral7863
@@ultimatemeaning close your eyes and notice how the body becomes a memory image.
its a reflection of a pattern of color. like an echo
I spent many thousands of hours looking at things like memory images, and so based on your statements I wonder if you have ever looked for yourself. Have you ever looked and if so what did you find.?
If you investigate I think you will find that they are not what you assume them to be. There is no harm in trying, right?
@@mikelisteral7863
🙏🙏🙏
25:20 I have to ask for your clarification here. Since you say that (paraphrasing) “there are all these people who have supposed “profound experiences” which are really just feelings, just appearances, just mundane human experiences that you could also get from a Hollywood movie” I have to ask, what else could you possibly experience? Everything you can possibly experience is logically just an experience, no matter what it is. So I don’t understand your argument about there being some difference between a “mundane feeling / appearance” and a “profound experience” - sounds to me more like you’re just making arbitrary categories and labels here. You said that a “real, profound experience” comes accompanied by some deep insights. I’ll say from my own experiences that I often have different moments of “realization” where in just that moment I feel like I realized something profound, but in the end it doesn’t change anything, and at other times I’ll have realizations that feel equally profound and those then do lead to some genuine change in my general attitude and perspective or whatever, and only time tells which is which, really. So yeah just again my question how do you really differentiate between a “real, profound experience” and “just an ordinary appearance”, since both would be experienced in the exact same way? (Edit: after continuing to listen a bit further you’ve explained that “the appearance aspect is the mundane aspect”, so I guess the answer to my question of “what’s the difference between a profound experience of emptiness and a mundane appearance?” can only be answered by my own experience of something other than a mundane appearance..)
Pls seek out reputed good teachers,
All others are after donation donation donation 😂😂😂
I don't really have a problem with people making a living off of new age spirituality per se, its better than a lot of jobs, like slaughtering animals. My intention isn't to upset the followers of these teachers but to encourage people who are serious in their quest for true spiritual knowledge not to get caught up in mundane misconceptions, and spiritual assumptions (for example that awakening is common place and easy).
there is another great danger and that is if we commercialise the Dharma then it becomes a cause for people to turn their back on the path of liberation. People get tired of being hit up for donations and i t can cause a lot of resentment.
🙏🙏🙏