Buddhist Have a Soul

[atanu]

Straw-man. It is the negation of an independently existing self/soul.

The one who negates cannot negate oneself.

I know you have an axe to grind, but surely you can do better than this.

Please act civil and desist from personal attacks. You do not know me and what axe I have.

 

[von bek]

Please clarify what you mean. 'People act' itself means a seat of awareness. Nothing less and nothing more.

You fully understand the limitations of language when discussing your own religious beliefs, why do you act differently when discussing another?

"I", "she", and "him" are pronouns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronoun#Reflexive_and_reciprocal

Pronouns are essential in communicating effectively. They are not indicative of metaphysical views about anything. Arguing that someone using a pronoun has established your views on Advaita begs the question, to put in kindly.

Let me put it this way, if I were to ask, "Will you hand me the pen?" have I proved duality?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Please act civil and desist from personal attacks. You do not know me and what axe I have.

You clearly DO have an act to grind, you are continually trying to prove that Buddhists are wrong about anatta. It is your favourite soap-box here.

I am getting very tired of non-Buddhists lecturing and undermining Buddhists on this forum, it is rude, patronising and inappropriate.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I disagree with your interpretation of what the Buddha said when he referred to the "All".
I see them each as reigning at the head of each of their particular "universe". The collection of all these "universes", and the rupa-lokas and arupa-lokas above theirs, I call the "multiverse" or the "All". I do not state anything besides the "All", or go beyond the Buddha's definition of the "All".

The Sabba Sutta is crystal clear about what "The All" refers to, and you seem to be just making stuff up. "The All" refers to the sense bases and their object. Anything else is beyond range.

Here is the Sabba Sutta passage again:

"The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Thus Buddha denies the Atman (self), and the eternal unchanging soul, and replaces it with the state of Øneness (Zero-ness), evolving continuity (Santana)....

What has "Santana" got to do with Buddhism?

 

[atanu]

You fully understand the limitations of language when discussing your own religious beliefs, why do you act differently when discussing another?

I further understand that the differences of names-forms are rooted in 'Word'. So, when I deny that I exist, I assert my individuality. One cannot negate oneself. Buddha did not negate. Nor did he assert.

(I am not talking of conventional usage of pronouns. Kindly note the distinction).

 

[wizanda]

What has "Santana" got to do with Buddhism?

Citta-Santāna

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Citta-Santāna

Further clarification that there is no soul in Buddhist teaching, only a "stream of succeeding moments of mind or awareness". So.....?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I further understand that the differences of names-forms are rooted in 'Word'. So, when I deny that I exist, I assert my individuality. One cannot negate oneself. Buddha did not negate. Nor did he assert.

The Buddha REPEATEDLY asserted that the aggregates are not-self.

"Sabbe dhamma anatta", and there is nothing to suggest that Nibbana is a self.

And so on.

But you are a Hindu, so why are you lecturing Buddhists about what the Buddha taught? It is weird.

 

[von bek]

I further understand that the differences of names-forms are rooted in 'Word'. So, when I deny that I exist, I assert my individuality.

That does not follow, despite what you insist. Set aside your beliefs for a second and consider it. Even if Advaita were true, you would never establish it by playing a game where you assert that other people using conventional language proves your claims about ultimate truth. When you speak, you constantly employ dualistic language without considering the idea that it undermines your religious beliefs.

One cannot negate oneself. Buddha did not negate. Nor did he assert.

The Buddha made positive and negative statements about what he did and did not teach. Language is necessary to convey information. What the Buddha was warning about was a metaphysical belief of non-existence as that would contradict dependent origination. Negating oneself would be claiming that there are no aggregates with the designation of you. Nobody in this thread is claiming that there are no designations of people. Not that I have seen...

(I am not talking of conventional usage of pronoun).

This is my point. You recognize it in your own religion; but, not in other ones.

 

[buddhist]

The Sabba Sutta is crystal clear about what "The All" refers to, and you seem to be just making stuff up. "The All" refers to the sense bases and their object. Anything else is beyond range.

Here is the Sabba Sutta passage again:

"The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

You realize that the Buddha's description of the "All" includes "eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas"?

I read "eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations" as describing the range of the kama-loka.
I read "intellect" as describing the range of the rupa-loka.
I read "ideas" as describing the range of the arupa-loka.

kama+rupa+arupa = the whole of samsara = the "All"

How am I describing things "beyond range"?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You realize that the Buddha's description of the "All" includes "eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas"?

I read "eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations" as describing the range of the kama-loka.
I read "intellect" as describing the range of the rupa-loka.
I read "ideas" as describing the range of the arupa-loka.

kama+rupa+arupa = the whole of samsara = the "All"

How am I describing things "beyond range"?

It doesn't make sense to me at all, the lokas are planes of existence and nothing to do with the sense bases. You are muddling things up here.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

Look at the Sabba Sutta again, see what it actually says, and consider the implications.

 

[von bek]

Intellect and ideas represent the sixth sense base. Rupa is form. In what way does intellect describe the range of Rupaloka?

 

[wizanda]

The Sabba Sutta is crystal clear about what "The All"

Do not accept and believe just because something is cited in a Pitaka.

Further clarification that there is no soul in Buddhist teaching

There is no Atman (self), there is a soul (heart), as we all have one to exist; which is a flow of dynamic character energy as explaining from the start.

Not understanding our own heart (soul-melody) to begin; what is then refined by the process of enlightenment, and rebirth?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So you quote-mine the obscure Lankavatara Sutra which is not representative of the main body of Buddhist texts, then you mention the Kalama Sutta when you are presented with a sutta which you don't like? Oh, the irony.

Next you claim there is a soul, having just posted a Wiki article which clarifies there is no soul in Buddhism....

I think you really need to go back to the drawing board, your thinking is a mess. Believe what you like, but please stop dragging Buddhist teachings into your strange DIY religion, it's embarrassing.

Your DIY religion is theistic and probably closer to Hinduism, though I don't think they would appreciate being dragged in either.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Funny part is the vehement assertion of non existence of self.



"I tell you that I do not exist."

Eventually there won't be a self to remember that anyways. "0)

 

[Twilight Hue]

There is no Atman (self), there is a soul (heart), as we all have one to exist; which is a flow of dynamic character energy as explaining from the start.

Not understanding our own heart (soul-melody) to begin; what is then refined by the process of enlightenment, and rebirth?

Heart sutra is a bell ringing.

 

[wizanda]

So you quote an obscure sutra which is not representative of the main body of Buddhist texts

Which Sutra?

presented with a sutta which you don't like?

It isn't a question of not liking; it contradicts what Buddha has said elsewhere in multiple places... And sounds like a child has wrote it.

Next you claim there is a soul, having just posted a Wiki article which clarifies there is no soul in Buddhism.

Just because Wikipedia states something, doesn't mean it is ultimate truth over all things....

I'm not trying to state what Buddhist believe, that would be silly; I've been saying there is a soul based on reasoning...

Which so far even when presented with texts, you've not even responded to each time.

 

[buddhist]

It doesn't make sense to me at all, the lokas are planes of existence and nothing to do with the sense bases. You are muddling things up here.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

Look at the Sabba Sutta again, see what it actually says, and consider the implications.

The lokas are related both to the jhanas and to the ayatanas, in my personal experience. Upon achievement of the first jhana, the "eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations" disappears. From the first through fourth jhana, only the intellect (mano) and ideas/mental phenomena/thoughts (dhammas) remain. In the fifth jhana the mano disappears, leaving only dhammas.

 

[buddhist]

Intellect and ideas represent the sixth sense base. Rupa is form. In what way does intellect describe the range of Rupaloka?

Mano, the intellect/consciousness/mental states exists in the rupa-loka, which corresponds to the first through fourth jhanas.