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

Hey everyone welcome back to The Study Tube Project! Today's video is brought to you by Alice from Over The Curve.

Alice's Social Media:

Message from Alice:
Hi, I’m Alice :) In this video I give a brief introduction to the Buddhist theory of ‘no self’ which is a really important part of Buddhist philosophy. Do check out my channel if you’re interested and I’m always happy to talk about philosophy some more!

[johnfretz]

A Buddhist monk (Robina Courtin) gave an example that helped me better understand the concept.
As I recall it was something along the lines of saying, there is no inherent self. No indivisible part of me that retains everything which I consider "myself". That wasn't to say nothing existed, but that which did exist was so small as almost not to matter. And certainly not enough to call a "self."

She used a cup as an example. As she held it up, we could all agree she grasped a thing which we labeled "cup"; but the object itself held within it no inherent cup-ness as it were. If one broke the cup down into its component parts, there was no inherent "cup" to be found. Only smaller and smaller constituent parts. So "cup" was just a label we placed on the collection of those parts, but it was merely a label that was placed upon a thing which held no permanence. The cup didn't exist in and of itself.

So in the same way, the "self" is merely a label we place upon the constituent parts that make us up. Examine and remove each of the constituent parts, and one finds no self, no inherent indivisible I.

That's my understanding of it anyhow.

[aadithyahrudhay]

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

[ryanwightman]

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

[FNRushPatriot]

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

[andeexists]

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

[kanishkaranasinghe]

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

[eric]

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

[georgia]

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

[bahadursunny]

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

[nayanmalig]

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

[bayreuth]

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

[theUnmanifest]

you're missing the point which is experienced when we awaken.

the idea is that you have a sense of "me" inside, when you say "I'm me!" "I'm a 25 yo girls from this place etc..."
when you say that you have a feeling of "me" that arises in your experience.
when you say "me" it feels different than when you say the word "table"
that is your FALSE sense of me.

when you meditate, which is simply paying attention to your experience, then you can feel that sense of "me" and realise that its not the real you. that its a bio-mechanical construct made up by your body.
once you see it as such, you feel it, then it literally dissolve away. disappears, gone.

eventually you end up with no feeling of "me" in your experience whatsoever. and this is the day that you are enlighten.

enjoy!

[Eliot_May]

Composites are also unified, they are dependant phenomenal descriptions, with the idea of wholes, comes the ability to split them into parts. Therefore all dependent phenomenon by way of being splittable into skandhas, ie. lumps, are also in great union as well and non-separate.
No=negation
self= (in the way it is used in Buddhism is a negation as well, as they don't see a singular, permanent, thing, identity, etc.) so this is a double negation. The self they are negating in no-self in their definition already doesnt exist nor has it ever primordially. They do say that we have ignorance which is by nature removable. Ignorance is like jaundice or wearing rosed tinted glasses where we conform our idea of the world with the self, abstraction we are viewing it through.

This though is removable, from the causal point of view, or from the results enlightenment was never there to begin with, it was only due to our misapprehension we thought it to be so.

Nice video. Keep studying!

[jimmyfaulkner]

I am interested in what are Buddhists (mainly interested in Zen Buddhism) views on the nature of the mind and consciousness? What is mind? What is consciousness? Do Buddhists believe we have an unconscious mind? Essentially, how does Buddhism approach the philosophy of mind?

Philosophy of mind is a branch of philosophy that studies the ontology and nature of the mind and its relationship with the body. Aspects of the mind that are studied include mental events, mental functions, mental properties, consciousness and its neural correlates, the ontology of the mind, the nature of cognition and of thought, and the relationship of the mind to the body.

The central problem in philosophy of mind is the mind–body problem. This problem concerns the explanation of the relationship that exists between minds, or mental processes, and bodily states or processes. The main aim of philosophers working in this area is to determine the nature of the mind and mental states/processes, and how — or even if — minds are affected by and can affect the body.

Dualism and monism are the two central schools of thought on the mind–body problem today, although nuanced views have arisen that do not necessarily fit one or the other category neatly. There are numerous views such as substance dualism, property dualism, physicalism/materialism, panpsychism, idealism, double aspect theory, neutral monism, and more.

Dualism finds its entry into Western philosophy thanks to René Descartes in the 17th century. Substance dualists like Descartes argue that the mind is an independently existing substance, whereas property dualists maintain that the mind is a group of independent properties that emerge from and cannot be reduced to the brain, but that it is not a distinct substance.

Monism is the position that mind and body are ontologically indiscernible entities, not dependent substances. This view was first advocated in Western philosophy by Heraclitus and Parmenides in the 5th century BCE and was later espoused by the 17th-century rationalist Baruch Spinoza. Physicalists/materialists argue that only entities postulated by physical theory exist, and that mental processes will eventually be explained in terms of these entities as physical theory continues to evolve. Physicalists maintain various positions on the prospects of reducing mental properties to physical properties (many of whom adopt compatible forms of property dualism), and the ontological status of such mental properties remains unclear. When it comes to physicalism you can be either a reductive physicalist or non-reductive physicalist. Reductive physicalists assert that all mental states and properties will eventually be explained by scientific accounts of physiological processes and states. Non-reductive physicalists argue that although the mind is not a separate substance, mental properties supervene on physical properties, or that the predicates and vocabulary used in mental descriptions and explanations are indispensable, and cannot be reduced to the language and lower-level explanations of physical science.

Idealists maintain that the mind is all that exists and that the external world is either mental itself, or an illusion created by the mind. Panpsychism is the view that the mind or a mindlike aspect is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. It is also described as a theory that "the mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe." Neutral monists such as Ernst Mach and William James argue that events in the world can be thought of as either mental (psychological) or physical depending on the network of relationships into which they enter, and dual-aspect monists such as Spinoza adhere to the position that there is some other, neutral substance, and that both matter and mind are properties of this unknown substance.

Other subbranches of philosophy that are related to the philosophy of mind are philosophy of perception and philosophy of self. In the context of philosophy of mind, the problem of free will also takes on renewed intensity. Do Buddhists believe we have free will or is it an illusion?

So, with all this stated, what are Buddhists views on the nature of the mind and consciousness? What model of the mind do Buddhists hold to and how does consciousness arise according to Buddhism? Does Buddhism defend dualism, monism or something else? Do we have free will according to Buddhism?

I know all of this is deep but I am very interested in both philosophy of mind and Buddhism (especially Zen Buddhism) and therefore I think these ideas are of great significance and in desperate need for exploration.

[MustAfaalik]

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

[mylightinyou]

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

[LordUhtred]

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

[crneymar]

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

[saumyasingh]

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

[purumr]

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