Buddhist Have a Soul

[George-ananda]

You are obsessed with your aversion to "materialism". Buddhadharma is based on dependent arising and conditionality, if you don't get that you have no hope of understanding it.

No aversion, I just think it is wrong. And I also think that the mainstream Buddhist concept of rebirth is not compatible with materialism.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No aversion, I just think it is wrong. And I also think that the mainstream Buddhist concept of rebirth is not compatible with materialism.

The "mainstream concept" of rebirth in Buddhism is based on dependent arising, there is no soul or thing that is reborn. Instead of obsessing about "materialism", I suggest you spend some time trying to understand what Buddhism actually teaches. It is not Advaita, it is not Hinduism, it is certainly not the OP's strange DIY religion.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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

Clearly some people are not interested in answers or real understanding, they are more concerned with promoting their own erroneous preconceptions. Too many people here with an agenda I'm afraid.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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".

In Buddhism consciousness is dependent arising too. There is no "seat" of consciousness, just consciousness. No knower, just knowing. "In the seen, just the seen..."

But I know you have an agenda too, trying to tell Buddhists they have got it wrong and you have got it right, and there really is an Atman after all, it's your favourite soapbox here.

 

[George-ananda]

Hmm. In any case Buddhism does not teach Atman, so you are wasting your time.

I agree Buddhism does not teach atma but it also does not teach no-atma. It is non-theistic and doesn't address the question.

Also Buddhism and Advaita both teach anatta: (dictionary.com)
noun, Buddhism. 1. the doctrine asserting the nonexistence of a personal and immortal soul. Sanskrit, anatman.

Meaning there is no permanent personal soul; but the concept doesn't address an impersonal universal atma.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Meaning there is no permanent personal soul; but the concept doesn't address an impersonal universal atma.

An impersonal universal atma would be equivalent to Brahman, and Buddhism doesn't teach that either. I do wish Hindus would stop trying to interpret Buddhism through the lens of their own beliefs.

 

[George-ananda]

The "mainstream concept" of rebirth in Buddhism is based on dependent arising, there is no soul or thing that is reborn. Instead of obsessing about "materialism", I suggest you spend some time trying to understand what Buddhism actually teaches. It is not Advaita, it is not Hinduism, it is certainly not the OP's strange DIY religion.

We heard your interpretation of what 'rebirth' is. Strange name 'rebirth' would be for your understanding. I'm giving up.

 

[George-ananda]

An impersonal universal atma would be equivalent to Brahman, and Buddhism doesn't teach that either. I do wish Hindus would stop trying to interpret Buddhism through the lens of their own beliefs.

Again, Buddhism does not teach Brahman nor no-Brahman. It is unconcerned with such subjects.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

We heard your interpretation of what 'rebirth' is. Strange name 'rebirth' would be for your understanding. I'm giving up.

I gave a simple analogy to illustrate how rebirth is a dependently arising process in Buddhism, not involving a soul. Like I said, go away and study the Buddhist suttas for a couple of years if you want to have a grown-up discussion about it. Though I don't think you are the least bit interested in understanding what Buddhism teaches, you are just concerned with promoting your own erroneous preconceptions and biases, much like the OP.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Again, Buddhism does not teach Brahman nor no-Brahman. It is unconcerned with such subjects.

So what are you harping on about then?

Why do non-Buddhists keep trying to smuggle an Atman and Brahman into Buddhist teachings? It seems to be a regular occurrence on this forum.

 

[George-ananda]

So what are you harping on about?

Apparently you haven't understood my position all along. You were off on some 'this isn't Hinduism' rant.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Apparently you haven't understood my position all along. You were off on some 'this isn't Hinduism' rant.

Your "position" seems to be lecturing the Buddhists here that they are just "materialists" and have got it all wrong. Patronising and ridiculous, like you have joined the Dharma Police and must tell off those wicked western Buddhists.

Your posts say much more about you than Buddhism or Buddhists.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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.

Yes, and it is a complete muddle, full of misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Woolly syncretists invariably do this, then they try to herd all the cats by introducing some god substitute like "Oneness" or "The Absolute", but it's like trying to put lipstick on a pig, or more accurately lipstick on a Frankenstein creature.

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram

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.

you have obviously not read the Bardo Todrol the etire text is devoted to guiding the soul (for want of a better english word) throught the bardo , which is the intermediate state after death where upon this ''thing'' that to you insist does not exist , can be guided eiter to accept the clear light of Ultimate reality the Dharmakaya , this constitutes liberation from birth and death , ..if this is not recognised the soul goes into the second stage of the Bardo where upon the Buddhas from the six realms try to attract the soul , ...if the weight of the persons Karma is too heavy it will pull him down into the third realm as his imprints incline him towards rebirth rather than towards liberation , ....here he meets Yama the lord of death if after the revealations he has seen do not induce in him the will to rise above his conditioned nature and he is not drawn to take liberation he is compelled to take rebirth in the human realm , ...

this soul only becomes leleased from the cycle of birth and death when it attains liberation , ....your beliving that it dosent exist on the strength of things you have heard or read is not sufficient to grant you liberation so please stop bandying dependant arising about as an answer to everything , ....

it is only when we open our minds to what we are being told that there can be any hope of understanding our true nature and of gaining liberation .

 

[ratikala]

Yes, and it is a complete muddle, full of misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Woolly syncretists invariably do this, then they try to herd all the cats by introducing some god substitute like "Oneness" or "The Absolute", but it's like trying to put lipstick on a pig, or more accurately lipstick on a Frankenstein creature.

Mr O'Shez , .....are you proud of ruining another interesting thread ?

 

[wizanda]

Oneness

'By tranquility is meant Oneness, and Oneness gives birth to the highest Samadhi which is gained by entering into the realm of Noble Wisdom that is realizable only within one’s inmost consciousness.' - Lankavatara Sutra

Brahman

'There is no cessation of Divine Mind which, in itself, is the abode of Reality and the Womb of Truth.' - Lankavatara Sutra

In any case Buddhism does not teach Atman, so you are wasting your time.

[GALLERY=media, 7635][/GALLERY]
You're right about wasting time with you, it is clear you don't pay attention, that was saying the opposite....

Buddha denied the atman/self, and emphasized anatman/selfless; yet both are constructs of the infinite mind, which exists without any need of us.

are you proud of ruining another interesting thread ?

Contrast and strain, provides opportunity for growth.

 

[wizanda]

Namaste Buddha-Ji,

Then Mahamati said to the Blessed One: In the Scriptures mention is made of the Womb of Tathagatahood and it is taught that that which is born of it is by nature bright and pure, originally unspotted and endowed with the thirty-two marks of excellence.
As it is described it is a precious gem but wrapped in a dirty garment soiled by greed, anger, folly and false-imagination.
We are taught that this Buddha-nature immanent in everyone is eternal, unchanging, auspicious. It is not this which is born of the Womb of Tathagatahood the same as the soul-substance that is taught by the philosophers?
The Divine Atman as taught by them is also claimed to be eternal, inscrutable, unchanging, imperishable. It there, or is there not a difference?
The Blessed One replied: No, Mahamati, my Womb of Tathagatahood is not the same as the Divine Atman as taught by the philosophers.
What i teach is Tathagatahod in the sense of Dharmakaya, Ultimate Oneness, Nirvana, emptiness, unbornness, unqualifiedness, devoid of will-effort.

Exactly my point, one is explaining a much simplified version of understanding Øneness (Zeroness); thank you for your agreement.

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Wizanda ji

Jai Jai , ...perfect oppertunity to practice patience , ....
but sadly a waste of this precious life trying to read through some of this pig , lipstick noncence , ....

 

[wizanda]

Namaste Ratikala-Ji,

but sadly a waste of this precious life

Nothing is wasted, all of this was meant to happen; it is to show us through adversity how not to be ignorant.

After just posting the pointing finger, the Lankavatara Sutra Chapter VI stated this in synchronicity, a whole section on pointing, and words being ambiguous, yet their meanings are not....

'Therefore, let every disciple take good heed not to become attached to words as being in perfect conformity with meaning, because Truth is not in the letters. When a man with his finger-tip points to something to somebody, the finger-tip may be mistaken for the thing pointed at; in the like manner the ignorant and simple-minded, like children, are unable even to the day of their death to abandon the idea that the finger-tip of words where there is meaning itself. They cannot realize Ultimate Reality because of their intent clinging to words where intended to be no more than a pointing finger.'

If we get offended, we are also ignorant of what can be learned, it is like weight training, and getting angry that our muscles stretch, then we hurt ourselves; rather than the muscle growing from the strain.

 

[wizanda]

Our character, personality, ego, etc come from the mind.

That might be the case from a Buddhist perspective; yet it isn't right.

• Our heart (soul) helps create our character.
  
• The body mind protects its self by the ego.
• Our personality stems from everything, our mind, ego, and heart (soul), etc.

Nivanna is complete liberation of the mind and suffering.

Then there are others who, afraid of the suffering incident to the discriminations of life and death, unwisely seek Nirvana.
They have come to see that all things subject to discrimination have no reality and so imagine that Nirvana must consist in the annihilation of the senses and their fields of sensation; they do not appreciate that birth-and-death and Nirvana are not
separate one from the other. They do not know that Nirvana is Universal Mind in its purity.

what type of character do you mean that does not originate from the pysche.

Wherever the Tathagatas enter with their sustaining power there will be music, not only music made by human lips and played by human hands on various instruments, but there will be music among the grass and shrubs and trees, and in the mountains and towns and palaces and hovels; much more will there be music in the heart of those endowed with sentiency.

As saying our heart (soul) is a melody, when we fall in love, it is the music within someone that we understand.

Everything comes from the mind.

he must recognise and patiently accept the fact that his own mind and personality is also mind-constructed, that it is empty of substance, unborn and egoless.

They will be able to enter into the realm of consciousness that lies beyond the consciousness of the mind-system, even the consciousness of Tathagatahood.

There is no cessation of Divine Mind which, in itself, is the abode of Reality and the Womb of Truth.

It is the divine/universal mind, that creates and manifests everything we see within the Maya...

Our own mind is only a material construct, that we can use to reach the state of being a Buddha.

The Buddha denied the role of Brahman in enlightenment.

Brahman being identified as having a self is the error, which i also disagree with...

Brahman doesn't have a self, thus is all things, it is the universal consciousness/mind...

Thus clearly Buddha refers to it, yet not by name, as the religious texts of Hinduism spoil it, and thus cause more confusion.

I'm not bothered by this. That's fine. When you apply it to Buddhist teachings, there's a problem.

You need to be bothered by it, you can not understand why me and Buddha are saying the same thing, when you ignore the reasons for us doing so.....

Atman means self, they claim the universal mind has a self, which is silly.... The universal mind (Brahman) is selfless, the heart (soul) that attains liberation of self finds Nirvana/Øneness.

As the mortal-mind ceases to discriminate, there is no more thirst for life, no more sex-lust, no more thirst for learning, no more thirst for eternal life; with the disappearance of these fourfold thirsts, there is no more accumulation of habit-energy; with no more accumulation of habit-energy the defilements on the face of the Universal Mind clear away, and the Bodhisattva attains self-realization of Noble Wisdom that is the heart's assurance of Nirvana.

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?

Psychology-psyche means the mind only inside the brain, it is a mechanical device for calculating.....

When Buddha uses the word mind, there are 8 different levels of consciousness where the highest is the universal mind (Brahman without a self).

A soul is a dynamic energy pattern, each one of us is slightly different, and it defines the way we use our brain, and character inside the reality.

Then finding sources that agree with your view

As someone who has left reality before, and then chosen to come back to help mankind; I'm trying to find a way to explain things to people, in a way they might understand.

The core of The Buddha's teachings is impermanence.

Within the Maya, everything is impermanent; that is why we must all become Tathagatas, which is to have 'gone' past 'reality' (Maya).

he flat out denied there is a soul-a permanent shell/identity that makes up who a person is.

He doesn't deny it, he says it is for the lower minds, who still have a sense of self, and ego....

Which is correct, when we realize that Atman means self and soul at the same time, so he is avoiding the confusion found in Hinduism.

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.

Agreed it is the mind that creates ego from being hurt, and protecting its self; yet by truthfully connecting to our own heart (soul), we realize that it is more powerful than projections (ego), and is the source of our energy within the body.