Buddhism and the concept of "no" soul, "no" God

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

I always thought Buddhism accepted the possibility but figured all that was really irrelevant and it was how one lived their life was what really mattered .To the best of my understanding the concept of God is irrelevant within Buddhism an rightly so imho considering the Hindu s have millions .

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

What makes you so confident you would know one if you met one??

I don't know if I would care if I met one. Should I?

 

[Lyndon]

You should!!

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

One would such a person to care about how adequate the transmission of Dhamma is, so yes, he would care.

I was under the impression that such a person wouldn't care because knowing that water seeks it's own proper level under any and all circumstances, each living being is in exactly the spot they are supposed to be in. Therefore I would imagine that they would believe that a being's proclivities attended by an uninterrupted progression of circumstances that transmigrate from life to life over countless lifetimes are exactly what each being has to deal with at the moment. They might then conclude that there is no hurry to be anywhere in particular other than the place where you are, which in turn would mean that when your time to be Buddhist arrives, you will be Buddhist. Until then, you are what you are, and once you become a Buddhist and eventually become some sort of illumined master you would then come to the realization that where you ended is where you began, and the only point in being any at either place and any place in between was simply to be where you were at the moment. Therefore I offer that a truly enlightened master simply wouldn't care what is Buddhist and what is not, because Buddhism is a linguistic tile that cannot apprehend that which you truly are. What you truly are is simply what the whole universe is doing at the nexus of space and time where you are sitting.

All the best
Gary

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

You should!!

Why?

 

[LuisDantas]

I was under the impression that such a person wouldn't care because knowing that water seeks it's own proper level under any and all circumstances, each living being is in exactly the spot they are supposed to be in.

If I understand what you are saying, it would seem to follow that there is not much of a point on even having a Dhamma in the first place.

Therefore I would imagine that they would believe that a being's proclivities attended by an uninterrupted progression of circumstances that transmigrate from life to life over countless lifetimes are exactly what each being has to deal with at the moment.

I don't think that is or can be made compatible with Buddhadhamma. For one thing, it seems to rely on a direct denial of Anatta.

But there is a more serious flaw to that idea: it encourages callousness and disregard of moral duty.

I have seem similar ideas being taught by Kardecist Spiritism. Which is one of the reasons why I am so fiercely critical of that so-called doctrine. I have seen first hand how quickly those ideas corrupt people.

They might then conclude that there is no hurry to be anywhere in particular other than the place where you are, which in turn would mean that when your time to be Buddhist arrives, you will be Buddhist.

"Being Buddhist" is unimportant. Being moral, including basic regard for other people's situations and acceptance of the duties that arise as a consequence, is however very important.

Until then, you are what you are, and once you become a Buddhist and eventually become some sort of illumined master you would then come to the realization that where you ended is where you began, and the only point in being any at either place and any place in between was simply to be where you were at the moment. Therefore I offer that a truly enlightened master simply wouldn't care what is Buddhist and what is not, because Buddhism is a linguistic tile that cannot apprehend that which you truly are. What you truly are is simply what the universe is doing at the nexus of space and time where you are sitting. It's all you, so who cares what you call it?

All the best
Gary

I don't think I can approve of that view, let alone perceive it as genuinely Buddhist. It seems to be at least courting with apathy, callousness and even worse traits.

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

"Being Buddhist" is unimportant. Being moral, including basic regard for other people's situations and acceptance of the duties that arise as a consequence, is however very important.

The front side of a wave can only be the front side so long as there is a back side. The back side can only be the back side as long as there is a front side. Therefore, fair needs foul and a wise man needs a fool. An honest man is known in relation to dishonest men. One is only known in relation to the other. These are existential imperatives. A fish knows nothing of water precisely because it knows nothing but water. It has not experienced what is not water. The regard that you mention for the situations of others is to accept them as being what they are. You will come to knowing Dhamma when your time to know Dhamma comes. You will not force your time to know these things at any point in time other than the time that it will be.

It is my considered opinion that one who shaves his head and puts on an orange robe and carries a beggar bowl to live off the toils of others is simply in a parasitic self-involved phase of development. The truly enlightened ones are simply being present where they are.

All the best
Gary

 

[Lyndon]

Your time to know the Dhamma will never come if you don't accept anyone as your teacher, without teachers you truly are going it alone, a ship on the wild sea without an anchor.

 

[Unification]

You should!!

How would one know if another has reached "Dhamma?" Never knowing or experiencing oneself, what would one look for in a person who has reached "Dhamma?"

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

Your time to know the Dhamma will never come if you don't accept anyone as your teacher, without teachers you truly are going it alone, a ship on the wild sea without an anchor.

Perhaps all things are your teachers. And perhaps knowing the Dhamma is to know that you are in fact the ship, the wild sea, the anchor as well as the one who rides it. And perhaps not knowing the Dhamma is to see oneself as something separate and something other than all of it. Maybe the one who knows the Dhamma is the one who knows that he is in fact both the wise man and the fool.

All the best
Gary

 

[Lyndon]

There is a difference between jibberish and wisdom, and good reason to learn to appreciate the difference!!

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

There is a difference between jibberish and wisdom, and good reason to learn to appreciate the difference!!

I would offer the suggestion that wisdom is only known in relation to jibberish and jibberish is only known in relation to wisdom. How is one known without the other? How does one exist without the other? Or more simply put, do you in fact know wisdom from jibberish? Or do you think you know wisdom from jibberish because you read the Dhammapada or the Bhagavad Gita or the Mahabharata or the Ramayana or the Kabbalah? My cat knows none of these things and she is in fact a Zen Master. When she is playing, she is playing. When she is sulking, she is sulking. When she is eating she is eating. she is fully present in all things she does. She does not think about tomorrow and she has no philosophy about yesterday. Do you understand what I am saying? Don't become so learned as to miss enlightenment. There is nothing to know.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Lyndon]

Studying the Buddhadhamma would help, suitable teachers of the dhamma would help, thinking you know better than them, not very helpful.

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

Studying the Buddhadhamma would help, suitable teachers of the dhamma would help, thinking you know better than them, not very helpful.

How would a suitable teacher of the Dhamma help someone who has no interest in teachers of the Dhamma?

 

[psychoslice]

What makes you so confident you would know one if you met one??

That's so true, I hear so many saying how a master or Enlightened one should be, ha, it makes me laugh.

 

[Lyndon]

How would a suitable teacher of the Dhamma help someone who has no interest in teachers of the Dhamma?

This is a thread about Buddhism, maybe you joined the wrong discussion???

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

This is a thread about Buddhism, maybe you joined the wrong discussion???

I get the sense that the point of this thread is somehow related to proving the idea that Buddhism somehow allows for or doesn't allow for the existence of God in some form or another. This is strictly a Western question born of New-Agers, who, first coming upon these teachings assume that Siddhartha Gautama posited that there was no God because he didn't mention God, when all he really did was to write a method or way of living that is steeped heavily in already existent Hindu philosophy. Much in the same way that I might conclude that the makers of my vacuum cleaner don't believe in God because they didn't mention one in the instruction manual. In truth, if you go to Bali, or Cambodia and the like and visit Buddhists temples you will see Hindu gods carved all over them. Buddhists in many parts of the world have statues of Ganesh in their homes, workplaces and cars. The Buddha was from the Hindu culture and much of what he wrote were analogous to what Hindus already knew. The middle path is simply Sattva. Right actions and wrong actions are simply Yamas and Niyamas. Meditation is just Raja Yoga. Mindfulness is just Karma Yoga. All of these things are found in the Yoga Sutras and Bhagavad Gita without the existence of a Buddha. Nothing new under the sun here. The Buddha just adds practical methods of growth and development and a way of life heavily tied to what was already widely known, salted with some new and very effective methods.There is no worry here about Gods. You can practice Buddhism and believe whatever it is you want about such things as God. My point is that I think you are worried about things you don't need to really worry about.

All the best
Gary

 

[paarsurrey]

For those of you really into Buddhism that want to read an excellent but very long and small print article about the Buddhist concepts of not self, atman, and the concepts of the Buddhist God being the Dharmakaya, a force of truth, but certainly not Biblically based like Jehovah as portrayed in the Old Testament. Check it out, this is an author that believes we do have a higher self or "soul" or atman, and that Buddhism has a Deity or God/Theism , just one nothing like the description of Jehovah in the Bible, check it out.

Buddhism and the No-soul Doctrine (v4) | BRISBANE GOODWILL unit of service.

Whatever did Gautama Buddha say, was it Word of Revelation from G-d or it is supported by Science? Anybody,please
Regards

 

[Unification]

Whatever did Gautama Buddha say, was it Word of Revelation from G-d or it is supported by Science? Anybody,please
Regards

Revelations in the form of light, electromagnetic energy, photon particles refracting into synapses across the brain from having a pure,virgin,undefiled, and still mind.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

Perhaps all things are your teachers.

All the best
Gary

have you heard the expression , ...''everything is Guru but not everything is Guru quality'' ....?