sorry first of all, yet it wasn't an assumption, from the offset you didn't pay attention, and recreated your own meanings for the words, so i repeated it 3 times for you
Yes, it is an assumption and it is wrong.
You said soul is character. Character is part of our identity.
You didn't explain what self means other than referring to anatta
You didn't describe life.
You just said they all had a root word breathe. Then you gave me a link that is opinionated (if you read that) and god-focused; so, it is not a good source of objective reference. It just supports how you see things not how a Buddhist does and definitely not referring to how The Buddha sees things by using the suttas themselves.
Just because I disagree doesn't mean I misinterpret you nor does it mean I didn't read what you said.
We'll use your terminology since mine doesn't connect with you.
The Buddha doesn't talk about the soul as in character. In the link I gave you and what you gave me, he talks about non-self and self. Emptiness. If anything, saying we
are anything is opposite of what The Buddha teaches. He says we are ever changing. Stating that we have something permanent (my words) is opposite what The Buddha taught.
I can support my point by suttas, you can disagree; that, doesn't mean I am wrong. I don't want to change your views just want you to understand where I'am coming from.
The Buddha
does talk about self. However, you are relating self to breathe, he does not. He talks about self, as in the link you gave me, as ego, personality, and so forth. He says we have self (ego and all that) and we don't (we are not defined by that). It's a constant change. However, it doesn't mean breathe. According to your link, breathe, life force, or atman are not part of the list of characteristics that make up with the author describes as a soul.
You said the root of the word life is breathe. Unless you clarify, I take that to mean the life-force or atman that not only gives life to people but to the universe as a whole-->it is a Hindu concept
not a Buddhist concept.
Now, Ima challenge your beliefs.
You believe in Oneness. I am assuming from pass conversations and trying to decipher computer terms and concepts, that oneness being in unity and wholeness (holistic) with everything, everything, with every concept, and idea. Being at One or at Peace. Something you experienced in your NDE experience you talked about almost a year ago and repeat.
There is no oneness in Buddhism. However, because that is what you see the world through, how can you see otherwise? You can say I am wrong; but, that doesn't change that you believe X, Buddhist believe Y, and in order to understand why you cann't see it through your eyes, you have to see it through a Buddhists eyes.
You have to ask
and accept the answer a Buddhist gives you about his or her own faith. You also have to accept the interpretations, opinions, from Buddhist (not Christians or any other non-buddhists) of the sutras because we know more about it
personally than, so far I know, you have.
If you want to create oneness with everyone and everything, take a step back from the sarcasm for a minute. Don't argue with me.
Seek to understand not to disprove. Until then, how can you come to oneness with people who disagree with you? How can you accept that there are different ways people see reality and even though you don't see it that way, that does not invalidate their views--nor does it mean they misunderstood you, did not read what you wrote, and a whole other list of reasons you may naturally give when our views conflict with yours.
I don't want to change your views just want you to understand where I'am coming from.
I mean, if you say life, soul, self are all the same thing or root for breathe (whatever) that's your thing. However, since you are not a Buddhist and/or have not presented a sutra to support your point, how can I believe and understand what you say logically if your points are supported by opinions rather than facts?
