Buddhist Have a Soul

[crossfire]

Ok, that seems reasonable. But the bone of contention with that person was if their are rebirths into other bodies. Or is it all comparable with materialism.

Disliking materialism and liking idealism is a duality that creates distorting biases within your mind, no?

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram

If I have been keeping track George and Wizanda are both very outspoken on at least 4 religions. Its impressive to say the least. Who are you to comment since you only understand 1 religion?

Dearest Brickjectivity , .....I assume you speak in jest .but joking aside ....yes it is impressive and requires an open mind and a large degree of detatchment , ...something the Buddha wholeheartedly advocated , .....

but prehaps if the feisty Irish man were to put down the Guinness and take up pratimoksa the conversation here might not be brought down to the level of a bar room brawl , ......

P.s. ....... pratimoksa is also a sanskrit word meaning liberation by way of austerities or diciplines it is also a vow taken even by lay Buddhists , .....

 

[George-ananda]

Disliking materialism and liking idealism is a duality that creates distorting biases within your mind, no?

I believe there is a place for straightforward answers too sometimes. If you are not interested in that I will move on. 'I don't know' would even be a straightforward answer. I am interested in the question.

 

[crossfire]

I believe there is a place for straightforward answers too sometimes. If you are not interested in that I will move on. 'I don't know' would even be a straightforward answer. I am interested in the question.

If you are interested in an answer, then why all of the hostility towards materialism? Wouldn't that hostility distort/bias your investigations?

 

[George-ananda]

If you are interested in an answer, then why all of the hostility towards materialism? Wouldn't that hostility distort/bias your investigations?

I'll move on then.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Ima try to make my replies brief. I have not read the sutra you gave me yet; and, thank you. I have been asking for a sutra for I don't know how many posts now.

Because atman (Sanskrit), psyche (Greek), nephesh (Hebrew) all mean self, soul, life; all stemming from the root breath.

You said that the self, soul, and life stem from the root breathe. That's fine (I already said), the issue is how you associate it with what The Buddha taught.

It is ridiculous to say Buddhist don't have a soul, we all do; i know Buddha's soul from Heaven (Nirvana/Øneness).

Since you gave a sutra, why would Buddhist say they don't have a soul unless we define it differently than you?

The last part is putting your belief with Buddhist teachings. Nivanna is complete liberation of the mind and suffering. Nothing more. It's understanding the psyche. It's not metaphysical. The Buddha took out all of that after he practiced so many traditions in his country and found no satisfaction for answers.

Think when the word heart has been used by the Buddha, he was referring to the soul; as that is where we're connected to our soul.

Since you mention soul is character (below), what type of character do you mean that does not originate from the pysche. Everything comes from the mind. If you interpret that as soul or heart, than so be. However, I can give you a whole bunch of sutras that talk about basic teachings on liberation of the mind. Our character, personality, ego, etc come from the mind.

It does not come from the heart/soul. That's just how you interpret (which is a mind thing) things. You can disagree but don't insult my intelligence in doing so.

By recognizing our own character/soul, we can then learn to be more selfless, as we become one with our own identity, and can see when we're being full of self...

Yes, that's how you use the term. The Buddha refers to this same idea based on training and finding liberation of the mind. That's the basics of The Buddha's teachings.

Nichiren says we get it through faith.
Some Mahayana sects use the heart (like heart sutra)
Others actually use the word sin
Theravada talks directly about training the mind.

It also depends on which school you're talking about, what country, and what sect.

By denying our own character, and trying to be ambiguous, we can still be full of projected ego, whilst not realizing this is the case, as we've got no base to work from.

That's what The Buddha taught however he taught that these things originate from the mind not the heart and soul.

So does Buddha just reading the Lankavatara Sutra, which repeatedly speaks of Oneness

I will definitely read this. There are so many sutras that I can't read them all at once.

You're getting the very basics wrong...

The terms Atman, Psyche and Nephesh have set definitions, they all mean life, soul and self; they come from the root breath, in all the religious cultures...Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, etc....

This isn't an opinion, it is just the facts to begin, then you're trying to debate them basics.

I looked up all of the words. You didn't give sources to them, so I went off of what I looked up.

Like I said:

Atman: "This final substance is constituted of the essence of everything, and it is our very Self. It is called the Atman. It is the Atman because it is the root substance of all things which are in the position of an effect. The Atman is the substance of everyone and everything. It is the Total Substance of all created beings, and so it is called Brahman. The Total Substance is Brahman, and the same thing conceived as the essence of particular beings is known as the Atman. Even as there cannot be a cause behind the final cause, there cannot be an Atman behind the Atman, for the very basic substance is what is called the Atman. The substance should be ultimate, and the Atman is such. The ultimate in us is the Atman. The ultimate in the cosmos is Brahman. There cannot be anything other than this Universal Reality." Swami Krishnanda

This is a Hindu concept, not a Buddhist one. The Buddha denied the role of Brahman in enlightenment. He didn't say it didn't exist. It is just not the path to enlightenment. These are not my opinions. It would help that you accept some things I said as relevant even though you always disagree with me.

The terms Atman, Psyche and Nephesh have set definitions, they all mean life, soul and self; they come from the root breath, in all the religious cultures...Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, etc....
​

I'm not bothered by this. That's fine. When you apply it to Buddhist teachings, there's a problem. Mahayana Buddhist may somewhat agree with you. Theravada, most likely not.



The reason we differ is that The Buddha taught all the things you define as the soul/heart/character comes from the mind, the psyche. The actual processing of our thoughts and training them to be liberated from suffering.

You keep focusing on the soul. I don't know why, honestly. If you'd like me to give you suttras, and I mean a lot about the mind being The Buddha's foundation teachings, I can do that. I have to get up anyway.

I don't understand the soul the way you do. It makes more sense that our character comes from our mind, our psyche. If you want to discuss and exchange differing thoughts, can you compare what you mean by soul with psyche so I can get a better understanding of how you can connect the metaphysical definition of that word with the non metaphysical teachings of The Buddha?​

I honestly think you are mixing Hindu, Abrahamic (or similar), and Buddhist teachings mixed together by using Hindu definitions, abrahamic (or similar) interpretation of those definitions, and Buddhist words. Then finding sources that agree with your view to back up your interpretations and definitions, using Hindu definitions, and saying Buddhist words to describe and validate them.

Most of what you're talking about is Hindu not Buddhism. But, then, I just look for understanding not to change your mind or take my view into consideration for its validity.

Edit: Also, what you're saying sounds more Mahayana Buddhism not Theravada.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram G-Ananada Ji

I believe there is a place for straightforward answers too sometimes. If you are not interested in that I will move on. 'I don't know' would even be a straightforward answer. I am interested in the question.

I too would be interested in some straight forward answers , .....instead of destructive and confrontational smart alec tomfoolery which seems to be the approach to any thing beyond what I too undortunatly fear to be a rather secular approach to Buddhism which does come across in a some what materialist manner .

If you are interested in an answer, then why all of the hostility towards materialism? Wouldn't that hostility distort/bias your investigations?

Ive never known George to be hostile or agressive , ....but it is very difficult to hold a serious conversation when under atack from bar flies ,....if the conversation is not of interest please leave it to those who wish to discuss seriously , ....

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@wizanda this will take me awhile to read. Different sutras read differently; so, it will take me a bit.

 

[wizanda]

the issue is how you associate it with what The Buddha taught.

Atman is the opposite of what Buddha taught, as he was teaching to be selfless anātman....

Thus because the word Atman meaning self, and soul at the same time; its ambiguity has made people think that Buddha was saying we didn't have a soul.

Buddha was defining that Atman clings to the idea of having some solid self; when clearly soul isn't, it is transitional, it is without form, it isn't something we can hold on to.

why would Buddhist say they don't have a soul unless we define it differently than you?

Because of the bad wording in these languages, which is why i started with that statement, to show that the language is ambiguous...

There should be separate words like we have in English, and it would make far more sense....

Even now when we read the translations, and understand Hindu/Sanskrit origins of these words, we realize why Buddha jumps through hoops to define it, which then comes across unclear.

Will answer the rest of your post tomorrow.... Peace.

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Carlita ji

The reason we differ is that The Buddha taught all the things you define as the soul/heart/character comes from the mind, the psyche. The actual processing of our thoughts and training them to be liberated from suffering.

whether we say Soul , Heart or Mental continuum , it is imeterial , ..these are words , words are tools what we were talking about was that illusive something which carries an imprint ,this is individual to each being untill they reach the state of Buddhahood ....to Buddhists and Hindus alike every action has a reaction , even our un fulfilled intentions have consequences , these concequences are not of mind or psyche they shape our being therefore they must lodge somewhere , much like ink droplets in water , which colour or change the nature of the water making it impure , ...Buddhism is the practice of purifying the mind so that our true nature can be understood , ....

what Buddha taught was this process of purification , without which we canot even begin to look at the subject of true nature , thus he did not discuss it but it does not mean that he denied the existance of a continuum which Wizanda for lack of a better word is calling Soul , or Heart

earlier you said you beleive in spirits , ....if we are nothing but mind , what then are spirits ?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Namaskaram Carlita ji



whether we say Soul , Heart or Mental continuum , it is imeterial , ..these are words , words are tools what we were talking about was that illusive something which carries an imprint ,this is individual to each being untill they reach the state of Buddhahood ....to Buddhists and Hindus alike every action has a reaction , even our un fulfilled intentions have consequences , these concequences are not of mind or psyche they shape our being therefore they must lodge somewhere , much like ink droplets in water , which colour or change the nature of the water making it impure , ...Buddhism is the practice of purifying the mind so that our true nature can be understood , ....

what Buddha taught was this process of purification , without which we canot even begin to look at the subject of true nature , thus he did not discuss it but it does not mean that he denied the existance of a continuum which Wizanda for lack of a better word is calling Soul , or Heart

earlier you said you beleive in spirits , ....if we are nothing but mind , what then are spirits ?

It's not that. I understand that. How you explained it is different than how Wizanda explains it. Also, I noticed there is a combination of meanings not just using different words to define one religion. It's confusing doing that.

 

[crossfire]

namaskaram G-Ananada Ji



I too would be interested in some straight forward answers , .....instead of destructive and confrontational smart alec tomfoolery which seems to be the approach to any thing beyond what I too undortunatly fear to be a rather secular approach to Buddhism which does come across in a some what materialist manner .



Ive never known George to be hostile or agressive , ....but it is very difficult to hold a serious conversation when under atack from bar flies ,....if the conversation is not of interest please leave it to those who wish to discuss seriously , ....

I'm out. Laters.

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Ji

I honestly think you are mixing Hindu, Abrahamic (or similar), and Buddhist teachings mixed together by using Hindu definitions, abrahamic (or similar) interpretation of those definitions, and Buddhist words. Then finding sources that agree with your view to back up your interpretations and definitions, using Hindu definitions, and saying Buddhist words to describe and validate them.

it is difficult to adress these subjects in english without using words with Abrahamic conotations but if we look at the context in which they are used it should become clear that we are not discussing Abrahamic concepts , ....

but when it comes to what you call Hindu definitions it is allmost impossible not to cross over as the Buddhist Palli uses Sanskrit terminology through out , ....meaning that many concepts are shared , ....

Most of what you're talking about is Hindu not Buddhism. But, then, I just look for understanding not to change your mind or take my view into consideration for its validity.

we are both Dharmic Faiths ve have far more in common than many initialy think , ....

Edit:

Also, what you're saying sounds more Mahayana Buddhism not Theravada.

here you are correct , yes this veiw is much more prevailant amongst Mahayana practitioners

just like Hinduism Buddhism covers many variations and depths of understanding .

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This will be long. Take your time; you don't' need to address all points. I just want to get this out and find a conclusion.

My overall point: The Buddha taught everything origins from the mind not the soul and not the heart.

This is my main supporting point taken from the link you gave me.

There is no eternal soul in Buddhism. It (and the rest) are only "conventional words that the Buddha teaches [as our] ego, self, soul, personality, etc...they do not refer to any real, independent entity."

The soul isn't a independent entity in Buddhism. It doesn't exist. The Buddha describes what you call soul as the literal not metaphysical workings of the psyche. He doesn't use fancy language. It's just exotic using Sanskrit terms for the laws of nature.

'Ananda, when asked by Vacchagotta, the Wanderer: 'Is there a Self?, if I had answered: 'There is a Self'. Then, Ananda, that would be siding with those recluses and brahmanas who hold the eternalist theory (sassata-vada).'

'And Ananda, when asked by the Wanderer: 'Is there no Self?, if I had answered: 'There is no Self', then that would be siding with those recluses and brahmanas who hold the annihilationist theory (uccedavada)'.​

​

The Buddha taught that what we conceive as something eternal within us, is merely a combination of physical and mental aggregates or forces (pancakkhandha), made up of body or matter (rupakkhandha), sensation (vedanakkhandha), perception (sannakkhandha), mental formations (samkharakkhandha) and consciousness (vinnanakkhandha).

Back to my main point: All of these on your site originates in the mind

When using the term heart, that is referring to the soul; as stating previously, our soul is connected to us via the heart.

It is ridiculous to say Buddhist don't have a soul, we all do; i know Buddha's soul from Heaven (Nirvana/Øneness).

We don't have souls as how you describe it. The Buddha describes what you call soul as psyche and workings of the mind from ego to personality.

Instead it seems he opposed both schools of Hindu thought of Atman Vs Anātman; thus to sit in the middle line, as with most of his teachings.

Middle line? What I read (off-line), he flat out denied there is a soul-a permanent shell/identity that makes up who a person is. He said the self is ever changing. The core of The Buddha's teachings is impermanence. That comes from the mind no the heart/soul.

It is like the whole idea of finding the reincarnated lamas, shows that the soul transmigrates, and yet then people deny having a soul, as maybe they want to oppose other religions or maybe they've just not looked into it.

This sounds judgement. A lot of us don't refer to our character (how you defined soul below) by the word soul. It's the language.

By denying our own character, and trying to be ambiguous, we can still be full of projected ego, whilst not realizing this is the case, as we've got no base to work from.

True. Except, in Buddhism, it's not the soul/heart that's has ego, it's the mind. That's why we train to have liberation of the mind not liberation of the heart.

Yes, which is to mean without self.... Being without a soul would mean you don't exist; we all have a unique character (santāna), independent from each other.

Depends on your belief. In Buddhism, since it's about the mind, the character (how you define soul), originates and is of the mind. So, we can live without how you define soul since you define it by heart and Buddhist define it by the mind. We can't live without our mind working properly. Since according to your definition soul means character, a person can live without character.

Buddhism doesn't talk about "breathe". That's another word that says there is a permanent self or shell to which the breathe moves in and out. The Buddha says everything is ever changing. There is no shell. No self. No body. No soul. Perfect Zen.

This is the core of Buddhism. No self.

So, in other words, Buddhist do not have a soul-a permanent self.

My main point of the self/soul talk. Instead, everything changes and originates from the mind.

Having already been to that place/state within my NDE, we have a soul, it is just without boundaries, as it is part of infinite consciousness.

Ima be blunt here. Your experience doesn't mean what is true for you is true for a Buddhist. I think maybe experiencing practicing the Dharma and knowing it as your reality would let you see a bit differently. Since that's not possible, it's hard to take a subjective experience and define another religion's outlook by it.

I'm not interested in defining a religion, people do that themselves; I'm interested in removing the fallacies, so we're left with the truth, from the evidence available to us.

Y

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.

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.

This is a Hindu concept, not a Buddhist one. The Buddha denied the role of Brahman in enlightenment. He didn't say it didn't exist. It is just not the path to enlightenment. These are not my opinions. It would help that you accept some things I said as relevant even though you always disagree with me.

Atman is the opposite of what Buddha taught, as he was teaching to be selfless anātman....

 

[atanu]

Though had similar topics discussing that we need a better word for self, as it has been confused in many religions...

Because atman (Sanskrit), psyche (Greek), nephesh (Hebrew) all mean self, soul, life; all stemming from the root breath.

It is ridiculous to say Buddhist don't have a soul, we all do; i know Buddha's soul from Heaven (Nirvana/Øneness).

If we check what Buddha said about it, he didn't deny or reject having a soul in any texts I've found...

Instead it seems he opposed both schools of Hindu thought of Atman Vs Anātman; thus to sit in the middle line, as with most of his teachings.

So when we look into it because the eternal character is like a melody, that is ever changing; it is equated with the word santāna, which is the continuity of our own consciousness.

Thus there is no difference between using the English word soul, and santāna; the problem comes when we use the term atman, psyche, and nephesh, as it means self as well.

A soul doesn't need a sense of self, it is just a melody, character, flavour, artistic splodge of colours, wave form etc; applying a 1 to it (self) or 0 (selfless), only changes the way it interacts in the surrounding environment.

So for instance, you can put your soul into a musical instrument; yet if you have to much sense of self, you spoil it by wondering what others think; whereas if you're selfless you can truly express your whole heart and soul through it, and literally place your soul into it, thus creating amazing music that touches other people's heart and soul.

By understanding our own character's unique traits, that are continuous (santāna) throughout life times, we can even find previous incarnations of ourselves, as the melody is the same.

It is like the whole idea of finding the reincarnated lamas, shows that the soul transmigrates, and yet then people deny having a soul, as maybe they want to oppose other religions or maybe they've just not looked into it.

Think when the word heart has been used by the Buddha, he was referring to the soul; as that is where we're connected to our soul...

He wasn't denying the metaphysical aspects, and being an atheist, that is people's own choice due to words being ambiguous, and thus the true meanings have been lost.

By recognizing our own character/soul, we can then learn to be more selfless, as we become one with our own identity, and can see when we're being full of self...

By denying our own character, and trying to be ambiguous, we can still be full of projected ego, whilst not realizing this is the case, as we've got no base to work from.

I think it is a question of definition.

I understand atman or soul or self as a seat of consciousness, which I undeniably am. I do not think that anyone can say "I know I am not conscious".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

sadly it is only become different through minor missinturpretation , if the Buddha did not intend the sanskrit meaning then there would have been no point in its use in the first place , nor would the first council have permited its use .

Purnabhava , has nothing to do with the teaching of Brahman or Atman ....as you have not yet to my knowledge answered the question posed earlier by @George-ananda as to what exactly takes Re birth then you may find this interesting reading

I don't understand what you are saying, it is just the Pali and Sanskrit versions of the same word. But I agree it has nothing to do with Brahman or Atman. There is not a "thing" that is reborn in Buddhism, it is dependent arising.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So does Buddha just reading the Lankavatara Sutra, which repeatedly speaks of Oneness.

Only to dismiss it as another idea which is clung to. Read the sutra properly instead of just quote-mining.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Ok, that seems reasonable. But the bone of contention with that person was if their are rebirths into other bodies. Or is it all comparable with materialism.

You are obsessed with your aversion to "materialism" and your craving for the paranormal.

Buddhadharma is based on dependent arising and conditionality, if you don't get that you have no hope of understanding it. It is actually quite simple, but I think your head is just too full of other ideas to take it in.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The terms Atman, Psyche and Nephesh have set definitions, they all mean life, soul and self; they come from the root breath, in all the religious cultures...Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, etc....

Hmm. In any case Buddhism does not teach Atman, so you are wasting your time. Why must you try to drag all the worlds religions into your strange Frankenstein creation?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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.

No, you are the one making stuff up.