Buddhist Have a Soul

[Rick O'Shez]

Some interesting comments in the Wiki article on the Lankavatara Sutra: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laṅkāvatāra_Sūtra

"Because the world is seen as being "mind-only" or "consciousness-only", all phenomena are void, empty of self (atman) and illusory"

"However, the Buddha makes clear that the Buddha-nature is not a self (atman) and is empty of self-nature. He states that it is merely a useful means (upaya) of teaching the dharma to others:"

"The tathagatagarbha or "Buddha-nature" doctrine has been interpreted as an expression of the doctrines of pratītyasamutpāda "dependent origination" and emptiness. While seemingly monistic in nature, describing the tathagatagarbha as eternal (nitya) and immutable ('atman'), this doctrine is ultimately based on emptiness. According to Japanese scholar Yamaguchi Susumu, the most important point in the tathagatagarbha literature is that "the 'pratitysamutpada' is the 'tathagatagarbha'."[6] Likewise, Ichijo Ogawa, argues that 'tathatagatagarbha' is basically equivalent to emptiness and the nature of the mind which allows it to understand emptiness. This interpretation is based on a passage from the Ratnagotravibhāga, which states that "all sentient beings are possessed of the 'tathagatagarbha'"."


It's emptiness where-ever you look! No soul to be found! Nothing here to support silly DIY religions or self-proclaimed prophets on ego-trips! Hurrah!

 

[George-ananda]

It sounds like you are more concerned with adopting a comforting belief system than searching for the truth.

No, I am concerned with the truth first. And my objective search for the truth through my study of the paranormal and spiritual teachers has objectively led me to believe in the eastern/Indian/Hindu view of life that includes a lengthy positive period on the other side of the veil, followed in most cases by reincarnation and further soul advancement. If the evidence lead me to a materialist view of consciousness, I would accept that, but the details of religion/practices would have little importance to me. That is what I was saying.

Would you really just give up your practice if it was confirmed there was no afterlife? If so it must be rather superficial.

Yes, I would just be concerned with leading as comfortable a life as possible and be nice to others. Annihilation of consciousness at death I feel would render any spiritual progress I make {as long as my physical brain can remain healthy) pretty unimportant. I may spend a little time playing with a sand castle that will be annihilated in the next tide but I wouldn't take it too seriously; maybe dump a bucket and give it a pointed castle roof but no concern for the interior.

One desire that is good and supported by spiritual masters is the desire for Moksha/Nirvana; and these are eternal states.

 

[atanu]

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.

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...

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

Advaita or no advaita, one cannot negate oneself. A Buddha or a Shankara is not required to falsify or prove that "I exist".
........

Some guys say: "Consciousness is arisen of forms-names. It has no abiding basis". Which, means that 'forms-names' control consciousness of that person. And in that case of what use is his claim since his claim cannot have any abiding basis.

Some guys say: "The aware self is illusion. It has no abiding basis." Well let it be. I do not take cognisance of an illusive self that has no basis.

It is only arrogance that some people negate their selves using their selves and they abuse other people who hold different view.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It is only arrogance that some people negate their selves using their selves and they abuse other people who hold different view.

Arrogance is a Hindu lecturing Buddhists about Buddhist teachings, and continually trying to prove them wrong. Arrogant, patronising and completely inappropriate.

 

[atanu]

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

Is this your experience. How are you claiming this?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Is this your experience. How are you claiming this?

You have that experience too. Right before your conception.

 

[atanu]

You have that experience too. Right before your conception.

No. That is mind .. a thought when "I am this body" took birth. But Citta (consciousness) is paramathika category.

No one .. no one has ever experienced vanishing of "I am". It is the present.

The knowledge that all names-forms are transient and have no essence and that only the sunyata is the abiding truth needs to be experienced. And then it must be told to others. How else the truth that all names-forms are transitory and that the sunyata is the reality comes to be known and taught?
....

Anyway. I do not wish to make this a Buddhist versus Hindu debate. What I am telling is that one need no Buddha or Shankara to prove that one exists and while existing one cannot deny oneself.

It is not about Buddhism or Hinduism.

 

[buddhist]

What I am telling is that one need no Buddha or Shankara to prove that one exists and while existing one cannot deny oneself.

What is this "one" that exists? Please identify it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No. That is mind .. a thought when "I am this body" took birth. But Citta (consciousness) is paramathika category.

No one .. no one has ever experienced vanishing of "I am". It is the present.

The knowledge that all names-forms are transient and have no essence and that only the sunyata is the abiding truth needs to be experienced. And then it must be told to others. How else the truth that all names-forms are transitory and that the sunyata is the reality comes to be known and taught?
....

Anyway. I do not wish to make this a Buddhist versus Hindu debate. What I am telling is that one need no Buddha or Shankara to prove that one exists and while existing one cannot deny oneself.

It is not about Buddhism or Hinduism.

No. That is mind .. a thought when "I am this body" took birth. But Citta (consciousness) is paramathika category.

No one .. no one has ever experienced vanishing of "I am". It is the present.

The knowledge that all names-forms are transient and have no essence and that only the sunyata is the abiding truth needs to be experienced. And then it must be told to others. How else the truth that all names-forms are transitory and that the sunyata is the reality comes to be known and taught?
....

Anyway. I do not wish to make this a Buddhist versus Hindu debate. What I am telling is that one need no Buddha or Shankara to prove that one exists and while existing one cannot deny oneself.

It is not about Buddhism or Hinduism.

There is a "wholeness" through interconnectness and interrelationships yet self itself, that identify, remains empty. It's not saying things don't exist, rather that which exists, there isn't any abiding form or perception to point to and say that particular form or conception is a source of identifiable reality or existsnce in way of it's perminancy.

It's why I mentioned before our conception and after our death, the reality of formed ideas and conceptions about this very thing were talking about will be rendered meaningless and useless once it passes It's point of viability.

Emptiness of all things. ;0)

 

[wizanda]

No one .. no one has ever experienced vanishing of "I am".

Within my NDE, the sense of self is felt near lower dimensions; yet is finally released as you leave the Matrix we exist within.

The final stage before entering Oneness is a complete letting go of all desires; which serves this sense of the material self (I Am).

Think understanding the words 'I Am' is to be self existing; we can say Brahman (universal consciousness/CPU) is the only thing self existing.

Yet Brahman has no sense of self, if it did it would make more point of materially-existing; yet it is in a place of complete emptiness, therefore is an asset to all things.

Within the highest dimensions, we have a knowledge of our own experiences, and can perceive another person's many experiences, as individual "I's" within a persons soul...Like many coloured strands, each being a lifetime.

Thus we have a sense of Oneness or better still Zero-ness (Øneness), as in that place of infinite knowledge, we're one with any and all thought.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No one .. no one has ever experienced vanishing of "I am". It is the present.

The sense of "I am" ( self-view ) is suspended when mindfulness in strong, and in some meditative states. And of course there is no sense of "I am" in dreamless sleep, or when under general anaesthetic. In deep sleep consciousness is in stand-by mode, a sort of reptilian body awareness persists.

At other times there is really just a knowing of present experience - sensations, sights, sounds, states of mind, etc. "I am" is superimposed.

"I think, therefore I think I am."

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What is this "one" that exists? Please identify it.

Therein lies the problem. There is really only the experience of sensations, sights, sounds, thoughts, states of mind, and so on. The rest is assumption and speculation.

People have "spiritual" experiences and awakenings and such, but of course they all occur "in" the mind. You could say there is the experience of different states of mind.

Some people read all kinds of stuff into these different states of mind, make all sorts of religious assumptions about them, reify them, project them out, arrogantly assume their subjective experiences must correspond to "heaven" or "ultimate reality" or "cosmic consciousness" or "oneness", or whatever. These are usually god-substitutes when you scratch the surface, there is a need for something bigger "out there", a need for comfort and meaning.

Some even become self-proclaimed prophets and start preaching on public discussion boards. And here we are!

 

[psychoslice]

For me personally I see so called Buddhism as nothing but a label, a concept, we are all that which IS, and that which we are is what Buddhism is, anything else is just made up concepts that really mean nothing.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

For me personally I see so called Buddhism as nothing but a label, a concept, we are all that which IS, and that which we are is what Buddhism is, anything else is just made up concepts that really mean nothing.

Just different assumptions really. Buddhists have emptiness, Hindus have Brahman, Christians have God, and you have your "Sauce", I mean "Source".

 

[psychoslice]

Just different assumptions really. Buddhists have emptiness, Hindus have Brahman, Christians have God, and you have your "Sauce", I mean "Source".

Yep you got it baby.

 

[wizanda]

There is really only the experience of sensations, sights, sounds, thoughts, states of mind, and so on. The rest is assumption and speculation.

Remote viewing was done by the American military, as it works....

There are many levels of consciousness outside of the physical ego.

The Thirty-one Planes of Existence

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There are many levels of consciousness outside of the physical ego.

Altered states of consciousness are different states of mind. They can be interpreted in different ways, but they are inherently subjective and therefore not objective proof of anything.

I would have more respect for your views if you said things like: "I experienced an altered state of consciousness, which I interpreted as the first level of Heaven for the following reasons..."

 

[Kartari]

Hi George,

NDEs of the blind This is one example. A book has been written of a study of the entire phenomenon by a Dr. Cooper if you are interested.

Thank you. It's an interesting claim.

Well, that's fine for you, apparently. For me, if I didn't have a belief in continuation of consciousness at death, I would be left unmotivated to the details and practice of Buddhism.

Not so detailed, as I would certainly not describe myself as the most astute scholar or practitioner of Buddhism. I don't even belong to a sangha, and I regard myself as an eclectic practitioner as I am not a group joiner and can't pick just one school. Though I do periodically make focused efforts when time permits to study particular topics in Buddhist history, or Buddhist scriptures and teachings, as well as practice certain meditation techniques on my own. It's the most fascinating subject matter to me, the idea that we can train our minds to perceive fewer delusions and more of reality as it is, to attain an inner tranquility in the midst of the world's insanity. And though I'm certainly not awakened, I do understand from firsthand experience how it can be achieved.

 

[George-ananda]

Thank you. It's an interesting claim.

To me, evidence for the 'paranormal' has been the turning point in my worldview; from materialist to spiritualist. I notice most people though want to quarantine such things as side issues.

 

[Kartari]

Hi George,

To me, evidence for the 'paranormal' has been the turning point in my worldview; from materialist to spiritualist. I notice most people though want to quarantine such things as side issues.

Like you, I have given considerable thought to paranormal claims. I too have used them as an avenue to explore supernatural claims. I tend to remain skeptical, though I have found that some claims seem to defy known explanations. And I can appreciate the power of personal experiences, even when they deviate from what is objectively demonstrable, having experienced one or two myself.

But the rub to me is, without objective evidence, a paranormal experience is at best only subjectively affirming to the experiencer. I therefore cannot blame non-believers, indeed it's more logical imo to not believe an extraordinary claim until some objective demonstration, if possible, is provided. It's a problem I'd like to see solved.

Questions of confirmation bias and other forms of self-delusion, even when honestly believed, persist in what I've read up on to date. If blind people have truly been able to see in NDE's, it is indeed more interesting and harder to explain away. Yet my mind is good at thinking of difficult to answer questions. I am curious, for instance, if the NDE experiencers actually see the color "orange" when they say they saw such a color, or did their minds subconsciously imagine what seeing the color orange would be like and they awakened still believing this subconscious suggestion? An analogy might be similar to a non-psychic having an NDE that they're psychically reading the minds of others (i.e. "blindness" concerning this sixth sense). Not having actual psychic experiences, how do we discern whether the non-psychic NDE experiencer is actually psychically picking up things, or just imagining what it's actually like and awakening convinced by their subconscious suggestion that they indeed had a psychic experience? For if we consider the possibility that an NDE is merely an oxygen-deprived brain manifesting a dreamlike state, we know very well how we can convince ourselves while dreaming that we can fly, or move very slowly in a nightmare, and so forth. I imagine it would be harder to discern upon waking whether a non-psychic person actually had psychic insights or not, or if a blind person had visions, during an NDE or a dream since flying for instance is a far less believable phenomenon and much more easily dismissed when awake.

It is genuinely interesting though, and I intend to check out what you suggested to see if the factors I can think of have been accounted for or not.