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

[Lyndon]

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.

 

[Jumi]

Is it a Buddhist view? The text reads like theosophy.

 

[Lyndon]

Did you read most of the article?? Most of the quotes come from Buddhist sources, including the Dalai Lama, I think he is trying to point out that there is Buddhist scriptural support, and Buddhist teachers teaching, that there is a higher self that is not part of the skandas, some call it Buddha nature, and that the mind goes on after death, not the false self. These are backed up in the article with quotes from Buddhist sources, not all Buddhist believe in no self, its a fact, there is absolutely no where in the Buddhist scriptures where the Buddha says there is no self, he simply taught what the self is not; a creation of the skandas. ,

 

[von bek]

Is it a Buddhist view? The text reads like theosophy.

It reads like Theosophy to me, too. Check out the quote at the top of the page to get the author's perspective:

Brisbane Goodwill affirms the notion that all true religions and spiritual pathways lead to the One Source; that all human beings of any colour, race, religion, and creed; are “children of God” and integral parts of the One Divine Life. Brisbane Goodwill promotes the use of Goodwill and the sharing of Esoteric Truths and Wisdom to bring this inner fact into the Light.

And this:

There are many who do not identify specifically with the Buddhist religion,but nonetheless hold Gautama Buddha and his world mission, in the highest regard. His teachings, specifically the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, his effect for good upon the human consciousness – all these elevate Gautama Buddha to the status of being one of the greatest spiritual Messengers the world has ever known.

Having said that, many people whose understandings are based on Deity and soul, are confused by the Buddhist “no-soul” and “no-God” doctrines. What is it that the great Teacher said exactly? Can these concepts be reconciled with the esoteric teachings promulgated by such writers as Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (HPB) and Alice Bailey?[1] This investigation is the reason for this article, in which Buddhist and esoteric doctrine have been compared and an opinion added.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Looks pretty with a Buddhist label to boot.

Too bad it's not Buddhism.

 

[LuisDantas]

To its credit, it declares its syncretic intent upfront.

Altogether not a bad effort at syncretism, mind you. And despite its reliance on HPB, it does seem to be fairly sensible overall.

But no, it is not Buddhism, although it does attempt to learn from it.

 

[George-ananda]

The article argues that Buddhism is compatible with Advaita and theosophical teaching as I understand them.

However, I'm sure this article won't be accept by the Buddhists on RF that have an atheistic/materialist bent. In my mind, the great divide is between the type of thinking in the article and the view of the atheist/materialist Buddhist. There has been a lot of spirited debating lately on RF between the two views and debate can not settle it. It appears 'never the twain shall meet'.

 

[LuisDantas]

We do not accept being forced into supernaturalism or theistic beliefs, certainly.

 

[George-ananda]

We do not accept being forced into supernaturalism or theistic beliefs, certainly.

I agree. After extensive debating people need to just accept that we will not agree on some issues. I'm good with that and can move on with what I believe.

 

[Jumi]

I would prefer reading it from actual proponents of Buddhism. I have read some theosophical writings before and they are a separate religion. It's like Christian explaining the Jewish faith. Can be interesting, but I'd rather hear about it from themselves.

I know Tibetan Buddhists for one can talk about many gods.

 

[LuisDantas]

Chagdud Rinpoche specifically used to talk about gods and semigods in very rich ways.

But I don't think he meant even Alaya or Dharmakaya (it would be a very ill fit with his tales). As a matter of fact, his deities were both "person-like" when one leaves aside their level of personal power and not particularly fortunate.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Did you read most of the article?? Most of the quotes come from Buddhist sources, including the Dalai Lama, I think he is trying to point out that there is Buddhist scriptural support, and Buddhist teachers teaching, that there is a higher self that is not part of the skandas, some call it Buddha nature, and that the mind goes on after death, not the false self. These are backed up in the article with quotes from Buddhist sources, not all Buddhist believe in no self, its a fact, there is absolutely no where in the Buddhist scriptures where the Buddha says there is no self, he simply taught what the self is not; a creation of the skandas. ,

That's... what Theosophists and other occultists/New-Agers do. They quote Buddhist scriptures with an eye towards supporting their own views, regardless of the context and purpose of the Buddhist teachings. This desire to find a "Buddhist God" or a "higher self" is completely heretical from the perspective of Buddhadharma, and cherry-picking a few scriptural quotes doesn't change that. Nor is this manner of scriptural citation normal in Buddhist circles; it's the sort of thing people from a Christian background do.

The really important question here is, why do these folks think it's so important that there be some solid, unassailable concept of self that will allow them to persist after death? Let's be honest, that's what this is really about. What is the motivation there, and what does Buddhadharma have to say about that sort of drive?

 

[Vishvavajra]

I would prefer reading it from actual proponents of Buddhism. I have read some theosophical writings before and they are a separate religion. It's like Christian explaining the Jewish faith. Can be interesting, but I'd rather hear about it from themselves.

I know Tibetan Buddhists for one can talk about many gods.

All schools of Buddhism have stories about gods and often even practices that involve them. Their role is nothing like the monotheistic God of the Abrahamic religions.

Nor is it terribly helpful to personify or identify with the Dharmakaya, much less treat it as God. The Dharmakaya does not serve any of the functions of God, apart from being an abstraction people can contemplate. Yes, there is the Tantric image of Mahavairocana Buddha, but even then it's an esoteric image meant to communicate a subjective truth, not an actual God figure.

 

[Unification]

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.

A soul would make more logical sense as being an "atom." Adam, atman, atom. Atom evolution. Genes, genetics.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

The only thing I think I understand is that this idea of an internal soul is not important to the purpose/intent of Buddhism. So you don't need to believe in one to practice Buddhism and there's nothing preventing such a belief. So the discussion just becomes a distraction to the dharma.

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

Looks pretty with a Buddhist label to boot.

Too bad it's not Buddhism.

Would an awakened master care?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Would an awakened master care?

Know of any?

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

Know of any?

I have heard they exist. I have never met one.

 

[Lyndon]

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

 

[LuisDantas]

Would an awakened master care?

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