Buddhist Have a Soul

[wizanda]

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

Can you accept that Brahman (universal mind) is selfless, and to attain true enlightenment, and liberation from the cycle of rebirth, we must also become selfless?

 

[George-ananda]

Can you accept that Brahman (universal mind) is selfless, and to attain true enlightenment, and liberation from the cycle of rebirth, we must also become selfless?

I can accept that.

 

[George-ananda]

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.

I looked up Buddhism in Wikipedia and went to the Rebirth section and here is what it said:

Rebirth refers to a process whereby beings go through a succession of lifetimes as one of many possible forms of sentient life, each running from conception to death.[97] In Buddhist thought, this rebirth does not involve any soul, because of its doctrine of anattā (Sanskrit: anātman, no-self doctrine) which rejects the concepts of a permanent self or an unchanging, eternal soul, as it is called in Hinduism and Christianity.[98] According to Buddhism there ultimately is no such thing as a self in any being or any essence in any thing.[99]

The Buddhist traditions have traditionally disagreed on what is it in a person that is reborn, as well as how quickly the rebirth occurs after each death.[100][101] Some Buddhist traditions assert that "no self" doctrine means that there is no perduring self, but there is avacya (inexpressible) self which migrates from one life to another.[100] The majority of Buddhist traditions, in contrast, assert that vijñāna (a person's consciousness) though evolving, exists as a continuum and is the mechanistic basis of what undergoes rebirth, rebecoming and redeath.[100][52] The rebirth depends on the merit or demerit gained by one's karma, as well as those accrued on one's behalf by a family member.[note 12]

Each rebirth takes place within one of five realms according to Theravadins, or six according to other schools – heavenly, demi-gods, humans, animals, hungry ghosts and hellish.[103][104][note 13]

In East Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, rebirth is not instantaneous, and there is an intermediate state (Tibetan "bardo") between one life and the next.[114][115] The orthodox Theravada position rejects the wait, and asserts that rebirth of a being is immediate.[114] However there are passages in the Samyutta Nikaya of the Pali Canon that seem to lend support to the idea that the Buddha taught of an intermediate stage between one life and the next.[


But for the above to occur there would have to be what you have called 'paranormal woo' involved. A materialist view can not account for the Buddhist understanding of rebirth. That was the point I have trying to make in this discussion, not anything about atman and Brahman like you thought.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

These are my thoughts about this. I will address some of your points @wizanda and posts here. It will be long; but, I hope it I don't run my limit. You can comment; but, I can't change my beliefs.​

What Buddhism teaches
The role of the soul (and like terms)
Mind you, if this sounds wrong to you, even though I provided a source, it's probably how I see it since Buddhist don't believe in a permanent and eternal soul.
Points from posts (relating to above)
Sources

What does Buddhism teach? (This is a general overview)

The basic of Buddhism is liberation from suffering. (26. Ariyapariyesanā Sutta: The Noble Search "I seek the unborn..." and "But it's the unshakable liberation of the mind that is the goal of this spiritual life, its heartwood, and its end." (Maha Saropama Sutta MN 29) Suffering such as Birth, Age, Sickness, and death so not to go through rebirth. We do this by the highest form of The Buddha's teachings which is meditation, the eight fold path, and practices that vary by school.

The role of the soul

I'm going to use the dictionary's definition of soul. I'm blunt and this will be a bit easier than philosophizing.

Definition of the Soul

The spiritual part of a person that is believed to give life to the body and in many religions is believed to live forever​

In Buddhism, we go through rebirth. There is no eternal soul. Eternal is permanent. The Buddha says everything changes: impermanent. Here is the teaching: in the Annica Sutta.

"The three kinds of feelings, O monks, are impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen, liable to destruction, to evanescence, to fading away, to cessation — namely, pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neutral feeling."​

You also have he Anatta-lakkhana Sutta that talks about not-self.

All of which talks about everything changes.

The soul is permanent. It doesn't change. It's eternal. The Buddha doesn't teach that anything is permanent-soul included.

A person's deeply felt moral and emotional nature​

The Buddha does teach that we do have a moral and even emotional nature. That's why we have suffering. I won't use resources since a lot of what I say are repeated in the links I already gave. He taught that we have ego, delusions, etc that prevent us from being liberated in mind (above).

He does not refer as a soul.

The ability of a person to feel kindness and sympathy for others, to appreciate beauty and art, etc​

The Buddha teaches this concept in all of his discourses. He doesn't refer to this as soul as soul.

A soul is referred as a permanent identity of a person. Who a person is. The Buddha taught there is "no-self."

The soul @wizanda are referring to is not the concept and use of the "soul" taught by The Buddha. What you call the soul in Buddhism is should appropriately be referred to one's psyche. The actual mental processing, thoughts, and emotions of the mind.

Atman and Anatman (Hindu, you'd have to correct me)

Atman: "Self (atman) was the life breath, the ethereal substance that existed in the human body. The human being in vedic thought was seen typically as body and soul (atman); at death the atman rises from the body and ascends to the svargaloka, the highest heaven described earlier. These two concepts are central in the Upanishads.. " Definition of Atman

The Buddha taught there was "no-self" (as links above) and he taught there was self (links above). He taught there is emptiness. There is no such thing as one or the other. We are. Perfect Zen.

@wizanda what you are referring to when you talk about the soul is not related to Buddhism, it's related to Hinduism. What you are talking about is more Hindu thought not Buddhist thought.

Here is something I found good. It doesn't support my point but offers a "both side" view. That's what you need. You don't always need to defend your side. You look at others too: Adhyatma Vidya This talks about Atman and Anatman.

In this world of anatman, or non-Self, we are actually searching for the Self – very mysteriously, maybe very unfortunately. Though inasmuch as the world appears as an object of our sense organs, it has to be considered as an anatman, or a not-Self.​

The Buddha says there is no self and there is no non-self. Hinduism acknowledges there is a self and there is a non-self. They have similar thought given, well, same culture, same area; but, the context and religious views are completely different.

You talked about "added the etymologies of each word, so you can see what they mean, and how they all have the same root breath" atman, psyche, nephesh all come from the root word breath and all mean self, soul, or life.

The Buddha did no teach (he may have mentioned. He may have talked about it) but he did not teach atman as any part of our enlightenment-liberation of suffering of rebirth.

So, he didn't teach what you define as soul. He did not teach self (as explained above). He taught life is suffering (not divine as many say the soul is).

From Hindu thought, Atman, from what I read, is divine. How you define it as life is not defined as The Buddha does. He defines life (soul if you like) as suffering. So, if Buddhist believed in a permanent soul (which we don't), that soul is that of suffering and it's ever changing. Mahayana Buddhist believe in a Buddha-nature. That's as close to "soul" you may get. Theravada in the Pali (which I quoted above), they don't teach that. I didn't get this online. However, if you pick the right resources online, then you can make a good point. Wiki isn't a good source.

@LuisDantas in post 3 says "Like it or else, Buddhism is built with the concept of Anatta at its core." That hits the tail on the donkey in this topic then I'am go to the next. The Buddha teaches about Anatta, non-self. The soul is not anatta.

You can read more about The Suttas at Access to Insight

Points from posts

I already did some points from your post, @wizanda, but just in general, I'm going to fly over all of them from all members that sticks out at me.

Wizanda: "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." Your reply to LuisDantas​

Exactly. The Buddha taught no-self-anatta. So if I looked from your eyes to Buddhist teaches, I would conclude Buddhist teaches that we do not exist. I know you believe in a soul; and, that doesn't mean it is true. The links above about anatta and non-self kind of help that out. The book In The Buddha's Words is a good book to learn about what The Buddha taught.

@Rick O'Shez

"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). These forces are working together in a flux of momentary change; they are never the same for two consecutive moments. They are the component forces of the psycho-physical life. When the Buddha analyzed the psycho-physical life, He found only these five aggregates or forces. He did not find any eternal soul. However, many people still have the misconception that the soul is the consciousness. The Buddha declared in unequivocal terms that consciousness depends on matter, sensation, perception and mental formations and that is cannot exist independently of them."

Short comment. The Buddha talked about the psyche. The psyche, although you say otherwise, is not the soul and it doesn't mean breathe. It's the process and thoughts of the mind (as per definition of dictionary) and in the Pali among other places. This hits the nose:

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).​

Without the mind, our brains, we cannot experience these things. The soul, if you like, or the identity of the person is what's in the mind. @wizanda the foundation of your debate should not be from the soul. If you are going off Buddhist terms not Hindu and not Hebrew, you have to look at the mind.

It is hard to understand me or even accept what I say if you look at this as if everyone has a soul in the Hindu or Hebrew context and terminology of it. Can you picture people without souls? If not, then you may not understand the nature of Buddhism. That's fine. I just find you are doing so because the words mirror the context and meaning of your belief and what you're saying but regardless, unless you ask a Buddhist or actually support it with suttas rather than opinion, it's hard to see what you're saying as fact rather than opinion or belief.

Sources (You can read a lot of this from)

• In the Buddha's Words by Bhikkhu Rodhi
• Accesstoinsight.org
• Swami Krishnanda's website which has a good set of resources on Hindusim
• You can ask questions in the Hindu forums and get some reflection

This is really for anyone. You don't have to comment to everything. Just respect my disagreements, views, and facts I gave you Wizanda and if you'd like to end discussion, let me know.

Nam.

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Carlita ji

firstly please let me say I do not want to disturb either yours or any theravadins thought , .....but as this is a debate section , ....please may I come at this from a Mahayana perspective , .....

From Hindu thought, Atman, from what I read, is divine. How you define it as life is not defined as The Buddha does. He defines life (soul if you like) as suffering.
So, if Buddhist believed in a permanent soul (which we don't), that soul is that of suffering and it's ever changing. Mahayana Buddhist believe in a Buddha-nature. That's as close to "soul" you may get.

if you will bear with me and try to understand that words are inadiquate and that in our ignorance (our unenlightened state) we tend to over conceptualise words and grasp at an incomplete meaning , .....

however I will try to give perspective , ...and some comparrison , ...

atman is the eternal principle so can be said to be the inner self or soul , ....this inner self being eternal , it is unchanging , ...being eternal it can be veiwed as Divine in that it is our perfected state , our natural state pure and untainted , Divine in that it is all knowing being that it is pure wisdom , ...pure wisdom or knowing can be nothing but eternal as it is unchanging , .....

as in Buddha Nature it resides in the heart , ...meaning in the core of our being , ....in truth it is our very being , even when the body dies it remains , ...yet whilst we exist in human form , whilst we are manifest in this samsaric realm we become conditioned by external circumstances we become aware of the Body and its Gross elements , in this process we forget this very subtle nature as it becomes covered , ....still it remains there waiting to be realised , ...

this is Buddha nature , the state of perfect enlightenment , full knowledge , waiting to be realised , .....it is allways there , it is our true nature , ...but we in our curent state are blind to it , ....it is covered , ....it is eternal and unchanging yet we are finite , ignorance is finite as it is destroyed or removed by wisdom , ....wisdom or knowledge can never destroyed only eclipsed , as knowledge and wisdom are realisation of truth , .....Truth or actuality can never be destroyed , can never be wiped out , only ignorance can be destroyed , ....

so this Buddha nature can never be destroyed it is eternal it is our true nature , ....

Theravada in the Pali (which I quoted above), they don't teach that. I didn't get this online. However, if you pick the right resources online, then you can make a good point. Wiki isn't a good source.

Wicki has its strenghts and its weaknesses , it is not all bad , the only problem for most is that it will contain both Mahayana and Theravadin thought side by side , ..this can appear confusing , ....

Without the mind, our brains, we cannot experience these things. The soul, if you like, or the identity of the person is what's in the mind. @wizanda the foundation of your debate should not be from the soul. If you are going off Buddhist terms not Hindu and not Hebrew, you have to look at the mind.

from a Mhayana perspective we have three levels of Mind , Gross Mind , Subtle Mind and Very Subtle Mind , ....
if we think of the brain as mind we are thinking falsely , if we think of physical or mental experience in association with the body , we are thinking falsely , this thinking is superficial , ....temporary , ....when the Body dies this thinking dies , ...but this gross level of thought leaves traces on the more subtle level of Mind often as obscurations which we have to work through , ....this is Karma this is what propells us from one life to another , untill we realise our true nature , ....
if @wizanda ji wants for lack of a better word to call this inner true self Soul , ..I dont mind , ....but if we are going to try to call it mind we must understand that there are differnt levels of Mind .

I think much of the problem here when relating to Buddhist teachings or the teachings of the Buddha is that what is written and taught by the Buddha is a method of calming the mind and removing mental obscurities , this must be done first before any being can understand any higher truth , ....what is then to be realised by the clear mind canot nececarily be written , even if it is it will not nececarily be understood with the Gross mind , .....it is something that must be realised within .

 

[psychoslice]

Does anyone truly know what a soul is, not something you read, but what you yourself think ?.

 

[atanu]

Does anyone truly know what a soul is, not something you read, but what you yourself think ?.

Why not? Atman is seat of consciousness and it spans from the seer to the body. I can surely know the soul at manifest body-sense-mind level.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Namaskaram Carlita ji

firstly please let me say I do not want to disturb either yours or any theravadins thought , .....but as this is a debate section , ....please may I come at this from a Mahayana perspective , .....




if you will bear with me and try to understand that words are inadiquate and that in our ignorance (our unenlightened state) we tend to over conceptualise words and grasp at an incomplete meaning , .....

however I will try to give perspective , ...and some comparrison , ...

atman is the eternal principle so can be said to be the inner self or soul , ....this inner self being eternal , it is unchanging , ...being eternal it can be veiwed as Divine in that it is our perfected state , our natural state pure and untainted , Divine in that it is all knowing being that it is pure wisdom , ...pure wisdom or knowing can be nothing but eternal as it is unchanging , .....

as in Buddha Nature it resides in the heart , ...meaning in the core of our being , ....in truth it is our very being , even when the body dies it remains , ...yet whilst we exist in human form , whilst we are manifest in this samsaric realm we become conditioned by external circumstances we become aware of the Body and its Gross elements , in this process we forget this very subtle nature as it becomes covered , ....still it remains there waiting to be realised , ...

this is Buddha nature , the state of perfect enlightenment , full knowledge , waiting to be realised , .....it is allways there , it is our true nature , ...but we in our curent state are blind to it , ....it is covered , ....it is eternal and unchanging yet we are finite , ignorance is finite as it is destroyed or removed by wisdom , ....wisdom or knowledge can never destroyed only eclipsed , as knowledge and wisdom are realisation of truth , .....Truth or actuality can never be destroyed , can never be wiped out , only ignorance can be destroyed , ....

so this Buddha nature can never be destroyed it is eternal it is our true nature , ....



Wicki has its strenghts and its weaknesses , it is not all bad , the only problem for most is that it will contain both Mahayana and Theravadin thought side by side , ..this can appear confusing , ....




from a Mhayana perspective we have three levels of Mind , Gross Mind , Subtle Mind and Very Subtle Mind , ....
if we think of the brain as mind we are thinking falsely , if we think of physical or mental experience in association with the body , we are thinking falsely , this thinking is superficial , ....temporary , ....when the Body dies this thinking dies , ...but this gross level of thought leaves traces on the more subtle level of Mind often as obscurations which we have to work through , ....this is Karma this is what propells us from one life to another , untill we realise our true nature , ....
if @wizanda ji wants for lack of a better word to call this inner true self Soul , ..I dont mind , ....but if we are going to try to call it mind we must understand that there are differnt levels of Mind .

I think much of the problem here when relating to Buddhist teachings or the teachings of the Buddha is that what is written and taught by the Buddha is a method of calming the mind and removing mental obscurities , this must be done first before any being can understand any higher truth , ....what is then to be realised by the clear mind canot nececarily be written , even if it is it will not nececarily be understood with the Gross mind , .....it is something that must be realised within .

Thank you. It is early, but I saw this and want to have a good well-rounded comment. I think it is the wording. When I think of soul, I think of the identity of a deceased person. It doesn't have character-say divine. It's not part of a person or true self-Buddha-nature. It (or he/she) is a person.

I think another word could be used. Sometimes I use spirit but then that has many connotations as well. I haven't read that Buddha-nature is seen as divine as Americans would define the word. Best word I can think of is true nature or true self. I can't think of a one word definition of our true-self. The word soul doesn't click.

I will get back with you.

 

[psychoslice]

Why not? Atman is seat of consciousness and it spans from the seer to the body. I can surely know the soul at manifest body-sense-mind level.

Thanks, now what do you yourself mean by Atman, and why is it the seat of consciousness, do you mean Consciousness, or consciousness ?. If there is a seer and the body, where then is Oneness, or non-duality ?, yes I have also experienced the beyond the mind body, but that was only an experience, the experience itself isn't that which is beyond the mind body.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Bear with me. I have various knowledge of Buddhism and may be mixing Mahayana and Theravada. I don't know. I have both.

firstly please let me say I do not want to disturb either yours or any theravadins thought , .....but as this is a debate section , ....please may I come at this from a Mahayana perspective , .....

Thank you. I don't know too much Theravada other than reading the discourses.

atman is the eternal principle so can be said to be the inner self or soul , ....this inner self being eternal , it is unchanging , ...being eternal it can be veiwed as Divine in that it is our perfected state , our natural state pure and untainted , Divine in that it is all knowing being that it is pure wisdom , ...pure wisdom or knowing can be nothing but eternal as it is unchanging , .....

Going by this, since I don't know atman, wouldn't saying that it is an eternal soul unchanging be conflicting with The Buddha's teaching on our changing self (I guess it could be soul)?

I don't know if I'd call the eternal unchanging soul divine. That could be personal preference? It is certainly important; but, I came from a Zen perspective before Nichiren and it is more "we are" without adjectives and adverbs to describe what "we" or our self is. Letter B. I used to do "just sit" meditation where there is no motivation, goal, thought, or anything. I forgot what it is called in Sanskrit; but, that is the closest to true nature I can think of. However, to call it divine or eternal kind of defeats the purpose of the actual practice and teaching.

as in Buddha Nature it resides in the heart , ...meaning in the core of our being , ....in truth it is our very being , even when the body dies it remains , ...yet whilst we exist in human form , whilst we are manifest in this samsaric realm we become conditioned by external circumstances we become aware of the Body and its Gross elements , in this process we forget this very subtle nature as it becomes covered , ....still it remains there waiting to be realised , ...

I think we have a more terminology difference here. I agree but in some areas, I don't understand or use metaphysical words. A lot if not all what The Buddha taught is really common sense. But, in my personal opinion, it sounds more fancy to use words that could be summed in a simple thought, point, or teaching.

As for the heart, that is the emotions, experiences, and thoughts internalized. Our inner being is the perception and interpretation of our mind. I guess you and Wizanda are talking about the same thing but using the results of interpretation to express your thoughts. After experience in the Church, I find it more benefitial o speak from the source. It grounds me. Using words like heart, soul, and things like that makes it seem I'm floating around. Using mind, the source of the definition of the heart and mind, lets me know I'm grounded. So when I read The Buddha's teachings about the mind, I come to an understanding (which is basically his teaching understanding of the nature of life) rather than figuring out the nature of the heart.

I think it's the wording.

this is Buddha nature , the state of perfect enlightenment , full knowledge , waiting to be realised , .....it is allways there , it is our true nature , ...but we in our curent state are blind to it , ....it is covered , ....it is eternal and unchanging yet we are finite , ignorance is finite as it is destroyed or removed by wisdom , ....wisdom or knowledge can never destroyed only eclipsed , as knowledge and wisdom are realisation of truth , .....Truth or actuality can never be destroyed , can never be wiped out , only ignorance can be destroyed , ...

Wouldn't you say all of these things we can get to by knowing our mind rather than our heart/soul?

so this Buddha nature can never be destroyed it is eternal it is our true nature , ....

True. I wouldn't call it eternal since it's changing all the time. Maybe I should say it's not static. That's why I don't use soul since soul is eternal-it's who we are. More material or a shell. Buddha-nature is our inner selves. Soul is our outer selves (in my opinion).

from a Mhayana perspective we have three levels of Mind , Gross Mind , Subtle Mind and Very Subtle Mind , ....
if we think of the brain as mind we are thinking falsely , if we think of physical or mental experience in association with the body , we are thinking falsely , this thinking is superficial , ....temporary , ....when the Body dies this thinking dies , ...but this gross level of thought leaves traces on the more subtle level of Mind often as obscurations which we have to work through , ....

Thinking mental thoughts isn't false, though. Our delusions, etc are from the mind literally. That's why we meditate etc. If a person is meditating to get to a metaphysical state, I think that's the opposite of what The Buddha taught. If one is getting to a physical and mental state, then its inline. I don't know why metaphysical words and concepts need to be used. The Buddha used analogies and stories to express simple common sense points of reality.

It's a Zen perspective. I'm thinking of going back to practice Zen fully.

this is Karma this is what propells us from one life to another , untill we realise our true nature , ....
if @wizanda ji wants for lack of a better word to call this inner true self Soul , ..I dont mind , ....but if we are going to try to call it mind we must understand that there are differnt levels of Mind .

I think much of the problem here when relating to Buddhist teachings or the teachings of the Buddha is that what is written and taught by the Buddha is a method of calming the mind and removing mental obscurities , this must be done first before any being can understand any higher truth , ....what is then to be realised by the clear mind canot nececarily be written , even if it is it will not nececarily be understood with the Gross mind , .....it is something that must be realised within .

The first part, I agree one hundred percent. Calming the mind (rather than soul-least I wouldn't use that word) of mental obscurities. Is there a "higher truth"? And why does it need to be higher? The only suttra I know that The Buddha puts his teachings at a high level even that of worship is the Lotus Sutra. I don't know of Pali that puts the Dharma at a high divine (if that's what you mean?) level. I wouldn't say it's not important. Just the word doesn't seem to fit when referring to the mind but if you're talking about the heart/soul, then maybe.

It's a word thing.

 

[wizanda]

Just respect my disagreements, views, and facts I gave you

I respect your views, and unfortunately you've not replied to a thing i or the Buddha said...

So I'll leave you chasing the Hindu & Christian tail your opposed to.

Peace B with U

Does anyone truly know what a soul is, not something you read, but what you yourself think?

From my NDE - A soul without the body is a spark of energy, a dynamic wave form; at a quantum level you could say it is like a quark, these can evolve, and become multiple layered by the time they reach Heaven.

Within the body, it is connected via the heart, it is our dynamic character, that can continually evolve from what vibes hit it....

If you imagine we start as a sine wave, and depending what interacts with us, it evolves accordingly; so we pickup character traits, like becoming a saw wave from hurt or square from obstructions.

Within the context of santāna (continuity), these melodies stay with us within our death and rebirths; it is a continuous evolution of the music, by the time we reach Heaven many of us have become a harmonious symphony.

Those who go lower than here, to what some call Hell, is because they've not realized how the inner soul has become no longer like a child (sine), and is twisted and deformed....

Through repentance, which recognizes the inner melody, we can turn back to the light, which raises our vibration again; thus we're then often reborn to give us new opportunities to over come it.

Atman is seat of consciousness and it spans from the seer to the body.

The problem with using atman as this thread is about, is it is ambiguous on the context of our reflection....

It is like saying a soul has to be 1 (self); yet it can also be 0 (selfless)...

The soul is simply a melody, that makes us unique from others; connected to our heart.

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.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I respect your views, and unfortunately you've not replied to a thing i or the Buddha said...

So I'll leave you chasing the Hindu & Christian tail your opposed to.

Wait. You completely lost me. @ratikala I think agrees with you and she, I notice from her reply, I was talking about The Buddha's teachings.

I quoted you and I gave you resources. Maybe, I am highly assuming, that sense you already disagree you are reading what I said in a bias and subjective light.

Also, I am highly assuming you have not read accesstoinsight nor looked up the Pali scripture I quoted.

Maybe you overlooked I quoted you. I took a lot of time putting that post together because in my case to understand language I have to literally pick it a apart. I cant skim read. So, when I post I am actualmy reading your posts, quoting you, giving you resources, and sharing what that resource says.

Also, you completely confused me another way. I dont have many people on RF completely say I havent quoted and read them. Its more, I did, they skimmed it, they tell me they did, then they debate over it.

I am blunt. Im talking about people at RF not you specifically.

That isolated comment you posted of mine is not sarcastic. Your reply was (sounds like it).

But I do really hope you at least read and reply to this because I cant get upset and sarcastic when you tell me I didnt do something I blantly and clearly and literally did.

confused.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@wizanda another thing I noticed about your posts to me. You already have a preconcieved opinion about me and its, I and others can see it, really making your posts sarcastic and bias. Im being sarcastic now: take off the carlita-is-wrong glasses and read my posts objectively. You talk about oneness a lot. How does oneness fit with sarcasm?

The references to Hindu and Christian is your terminology. You have always talked about onenes etc. Some terms is strictly hindu. You used hebrew words and a lot of your posts clearly defines the christian (or abrahamic) view of soul.

If you read my posts, you will comment on context rather than content. I used youe resource to compare what you said to my points.

This isnt a debate. If that is what you want, I dont care being upset trying to rebutt what youre saying. If its a discussion, take interest and understanding of the points people-all people-tell you. I just look for understanding. No drop off conversations.

It helps greatly. Especially not just me but a lot of people you talk to on RF. Its hard to see ourselves and how our actions and words affects others. A lot of times, and I learn this through depression, we-all of us-may find it benefitial to hear things we do that we dont want to.

Now Im talking to you. Maybe read over other peoples posts that disagree with and the ones you are debating with. Maybe if you read it you will find some truth, acknowledge it, disagree respectfully,

And try not to be sarcastic. You may not hear/read it but its there.

 

[wizanda]

You already have a preconcieved opinion about me

Yes, I'd commented to my friends how i saw potential in you for conscious evolution by the questions you asked on here; yet find you argue with yourself, it is twice I've walked off from the conversation, which i never do...

Instead i always try to answer with enlightenment, and help others see.

The reason for being sharp isn't for you to argue even more, it is in the hopes you will go back, and re-question what has been said; yet often you don't, you just continue on your own mind track ignoring everything I've repeatedly said.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The reason for being sharp isn't for you to argue even more, it is in the hopes you will go back, and re-question what has been said; yet often you don't, you just continue on your own mind track ignoring everything I've repeatedly said

Here is the issue. The only way we and discuss anything is if you read what I clearly and bluntly tell you: I read and pick apart everything everyone says.

Its not to debate. Its a processing issue so I dont skim.

Now, I think that preconcieved view is completely making you blind (cant rephrase it) to what I posted.

You dont have to believe what I say. As long as I knos you -actually- read it. If you dont believe me, fine.

But a objective discussion comes with interest in other peoples views.

Not just mine. I see it on your other posts her.

I really do think the bias on me just isnt part of the oneness you talk about unless thats your personality?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@wizanda

Here is my point shorter. Some people on RF prefer not to read longer posts as one said about a year ago (not you).

Not agreeing and supporting my points compared to yours does not mean I did not read your post.

If someone truely discussing a topic with you, they cant form an agreement "or disagreement" without reading the other party's view.

Doesnt work that way in a discussion nor debate.

 

[LuisDantas]

People sometimes forget that, much as arguing whether there is a Creator God does not change the origin or nature of existence nor of life, neither does taking a stance on the Anatta-Atman divergence change human nature as such.

The concepts are simply tools to support certain perspectives for religious practice. And as tools, they are more easily misused than properly used if one is too enthralled by the simple access to them or the craving to decide which one is "true".

Anatta does not mean that humans are mindless, quite on the contrary. But attempting to force its removal on Buddhist doctrine is simply destructive and pointless.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Luis ji , ....

People sometimes forget that, much as arguing whether there is a Creator God does not change the origin or nature of existence nor of life, neither does taking a stance on the Anatta-Atman divergence change human nature as such.

Jai Jai , this is true in our natural state of ignorance we tend to cling to our imperfect conception and often feircly deffend what we wish to think rather than descover what there is to know , ....but here as allways the question reteurns to what it was that the Buddha was trying to comunicate , No self or Not self ? ...and that self that is being negated is that the material self or the eternal self ?...my veiw as you might expect is 'not material self' , not mundane self , this may appear to be realistic , to me solid , .... as although we may momentarily associate with the Material self the material self turns out to be the illusuory self , .....the eternal self is the self to be explored , to be discovered , ....

The concepts are simply tools to support certain perspectives for religious practice. And as tools, they are more easily misused than properly used if one is too enthralled by the simple access to them or the craving to decide which one is "true".

agreed , ....as tools they support the practice but in the long run it is all to easy to attatch to the prop and become bound by the conception , ....yes then we can develop the tendency to argue in defence of that Prop as id there is nothing beyond it , .....when in truth there is allways room for expansion of thought and of understanding untill clear light is reached , ....but if one canot envisage eternality then there can be no clear light , no absolute truth , ...as truth is unchanging , ..if we ''crave'' to find truth we run the possibilty of concocting it , ...truth is often some what uncomfortable due to its vastness , often it is something which we run away from , we think we are very brave but we are not , .... the small self can be very reluctant to let go of its veiw of it self , ....so it says ''no self '' , ''no ultimate reality'' , ''nothing only this'' , .....only me , mind , ...but this is the illusion this is the potential trap .

Anatta does not mean that humans are mindless, quite on the contrary. But attempting to force its removal on Buddhist doctrine is simply destructive and pointless.

trying to force anything is pointless , for ths reason it was allways recomended that the apirant should not be given teachings on emptiness untill he was ready , utherwise yes , it is dangerous , ....he wont get it he will just construct concepts around it but he wont see it , ...yes this is destructive , .sometimes the internet is destructive because we can have access to anything , any teaching...but this can be dammaging as it is not explained first , it is nor skillfuly taught , this is the small self trying to be some big self , ..trying to look up all the profound stuff without doing the preliminaries , ... but this other reality the true reality canot be seen with the material mind , material mind has to discover its own limitations it has to be out grown , even mind has the same levels so we have to exaust one level to see its limitations , ...so not mindless , no , ...but still there are many levels of Mind

 

[wizanda]

Namaste Ratikala-Ji,

the eternal self is the self to be explored , to be discovered

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 (soul + self) 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 (soul + self) as taught by the philosophers.
What i teach is Tathagatahod in the sense of Dharmakaya, Ultimate Øneness, Nirvana, emptiness, unbornness, unqualifiedness, devoid of will-effort.

It is the eternal soul (santāna) we are to explore, the self is illusionary....

The core of Øneness (Brahman) has no self; in its lack of self it is the Source of the Dharma, it is all things.

Within us attaining Tathagatahood (gone from reality), there are levels of ascension, the lower levels are absorbed by their own self; the higher we ascend past the material plains, and into a realm of pure consciousness (Øneness), where unconditional love and wisdom are the ultimate truth, no-self is required.

The self (1) is like inward reflection.... No self (0) is an outwardly reflection... Both are concepts of existing.

When we attain unconditional love we are selfless; when we attain wisdom, we realize that we're just part of the whole.

If we stop to look at what we are, whilst enlightened, we become inwardly reflecting and have a self.

If we try to say we have no-self in a physical form, then clearly there are issues with this; as without a soul, and without Brahman (universal mind), then where does the no-self reside, and think within some the egoic mind is all that is left.

As if we truly had no-self, we wouldn't exist in a physical form, we would have transcended the need of it, as here (Maya) is all reflections.

We could be in a state of 'I Am not-the-self', which clearly starts with the word ego by the definitive 'I'; if we say, 'We're not-the-self', then we're back to saying we are Brahman (universal mind).

We're to use the self within this physical form, by accepting we're One: we exist within the universal mind (CPU/Brahman), and everything is part of it within the Matrix (Maya).

Then when we see everything is One, a part of the universal mind, we realize really everything in reality doesn't even exist; it is all part of the dream (Maya); thus in reality it all has no-self.

The more we live being none (Ø) within the universal mind (Øneness), the more we become a Bodhisattva, by helping everyone by our selfless being.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So another thread where non-Buddhists are pontificating about what Buddhists should believe....absolute BS.

I've been at this for 35 years and I am currently responsible for a long stretch of coast. The opinions expressed here about Buddhism are facile and ludicrous.