How can one know they have a soul or spirit?

[Willamena]

The point of the Heart Sutra is to remove all obstruction. To get one to the point that such conjectures don't matter. That is why the Heart Sutra says there is no truth of suffering, of the cause of suffering, etc. There is no attainment whatsoever. The Bodhisattva relying on Prajnaparamita has no obstruction, and so knows ultimate liberation. I associate this with just the freedom to live. Let it all go. Its profound, yet its simple.

Isn't "doesn't matter" an obstruction?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Isn't "doesn't matter" an obstruction?

From a certain perspective in Buddhism, probably

 

[Rainbow Mage]

You are vague.

Tell me whether the experiencer of sunyata and teacher of sunyata are different persons or the same Avalokitesvara?

Or what was your own essential nature at the time you experienced the sunyata?

These are fair questions, and I don't think Buddhism underestimates them, but tries to underplay the implications by claiming the nature of the self is ultimately paradoxical. You'll remember that Buddhism does hold to Anatta, and reject the notion of the Atman. At the time, it seemed like perfect bliss, and seeing compound consciousness like compartments, but I explained I hold that itself- anything I may feel at the moment, to be compound. I'm okay with that because my brain just does it. I live as though I actually were the self I am now. What else can one do?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

So moment to moment whatever the brain generates (as per its whims or as per its own processes) makes a person? What is mindfulness then? Who is mindful of the monkey dance of the mind -- from moment to moment?



What objective sense can be expected from the Being that is dependent moment to moment on blind processes of brain?
.......

I think mindfulness is about getting absorbed enough to gain this insight, but the mindfulness is a kind of deconstruction. I do not say that the sense of being has objectivity, so much as the things that impress on it. I don't say, for example, that a stove burner being hot is an illusion when one feels it. I definitely hold to materialism, but bear in mind I'm not exactly a Buddhist. I used to be, and consider myself still very influenced by it. My ontology is a hybrid of Buddhism and Epicureanism if anything.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I hold with Epicurus that the point of living, if there is one, is to be happy and enjoy life. Just to live, because that's all there would be left for one to do once they've seen where they really stand- as it were. This is likely fairly un-Buddhist, and is Epicurean.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Buddha basically asked "Whether these deliberations actually help you?" and put an end to the debate. Hindus continued, help or not - we must know. That is the basic difference between Hinduism and Buddhism.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Buddha basically asked "Whether these deliberations actually help you?" and put an end to the debate. Hindus continued, help or not - we must know. That is the basic difference between Hinduism and Buddhism.

I'm a bit of a Hindu in that regard.
I do get rather frustrated with all the Buddha's unanswered questions, I wonder if he actually knew the answers or not.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Who is mindful of the monkey dance of the mind -- from moment to moment?

That's a good question, and one that I have been struggling with recently. It feels like there is a continuity of knowing involved, a point of stillness or calm centre perhaps. I sometimes think of it as the eye at the centre of the storm. I'll let you know if I work it out.

 

[Blastcat]

Yes, that you are not really interested in the body of evidence and argumentation that I was willing to intelligently discuss. Also, that you are just wasting my time now.

SO, your point is that by asking you questions, you take it to mean that I am not interested.
Also, you seem to think that you own time.

You made your claim, you offer no evidence.
Yet.

We will see who is wasting time.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do get rather frustrated with all the Buddha's unanswered questions, I wonder if he actually knew the answers or not.

If we disregard the data made available by science, I think he probably knew as much as we know today. Mostly conjectures about the 'ultimate truth'.

Who is mindful of the monkey dance of the mind - from moment to moment?

When aware, mind itself; otherwise none. No one notices and it keeps on happening.

 

[Blastcat]

If we disregard the data made available by science, I think he probably knew as much as we know today. Mostly conjectures about the 'ultimate truth'. When aware, mind itself; otherwise none. No one notices and it keeps on happening.

When it comes to conjecture, meh... one is as good as any other.
Stating rather meaningless tautologies that SOUND deep is a very old tradition.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Blastcat, I have given very precise answers (of course, according to my view) to the two questions. If the questioners have any difference with the answers, they are welcome to discuss it. If you cannot understand, that is not my fault. What tautologies have you found in my answers?

 

[atanu]

.......
How is it that one can posit the self has a seat or permanence to it, when the sense of being is comprised of many factors- mostly things people experience in their lives?
Take away any one of these experiences, and the sense of self wouldn't be the same. We wouldn't feel like the same person.
Presumably the entire sense of self can be deconstructed in this way, until we come to no mind elements, and states are just passing moments.
How then does one put forth in contrast to this, that we have a soul?

Tell me whether the experiencer of sunyata and teacher of sunyata are different persons or the same Avalokitesvara?

Or what was your own essential nature at the time you experienced the sunyata?

These are fair questions, and I don't think Buddhism underestimates them, but tries to underplay the implications by claiming the nature of the self is ultimately paradoxical.

I hope that you will see assumptions and presumptions in the OP.

 

[atanu]

If we disregard the data made available by science, I think he probably knew as much as we know today. Mostly conjectures about the 'ultimate truth'. When aware, mind itself; otherwise none. No one notices and it keeps on happening.

Well. Code obfuscation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well. Code obfuscation.

1. If you see what I meant was that Buddha knew just as much as we do today. We too do not have a clear answer on eternity vs. non-existence. My writing 'perhaps' is sort of a polite way to express the idea, not making it authoritative.
2. Human mind mostly is not aware of itself without proper training and acts more or less like an automaton. Even when it notices, it, after all, arises from a bundle of atoms or you can say a blob of physical energy. Its awareness will not last beyond the life of a person (I understand many people have views different from this, but that is OK). What happens, whatever happens in the universe, is not affected by someone's observance or non-observance. It keeps on happening.

I hope my position is clearer now.

 

[atanu]

1. If you see what I meant was that Buddha knew just as much as we do today. ....

That is your perception. Buddha started his teaching with: Wide opened is the door of the Deathless to all who have ears to hear; let them send forth faith [saddhā] to meet it.

Buddhism is not Materialism-Nihilism, as some would like us to believe.

 

[Aupmanyav]

'Ex-nihilo' is not nihilsm once things come to exist.

 

[Blastcat]

Blastcat, I have given very precise answers (of course, according to my view) to the two questions. If the questioners have any difference with the answers, they are welcome to discuss it. If you cannot understand, that is not my fault. What tautologies have you found in my answers?

i cannot understand you at all , but you make it all sound so deep.. what does "When aware, mind itself; otherwise none. No one notices and it keeps on happening."

do you mean that when aware the mind is aware, and when it's not ,it's not?
I wonder why people bother to write if they don't care if people understand them?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Kindly read my previous post (# 135) where I have tried to explain it. Yes, some people are aware of more things in life (for example, environment degradation in the present time), some are not - just carrying on with their life in disregard to these. But the effects of environmental degradation will keep on happening unaffected by whether people are aware or not.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Buddhism is not Materialism-Nihilism, as some would like us to believe.

Buddhism is in the process of adapting to western culture, so a degree of secularisation is probably inevitable. However I'm not sure whether the secularists really understand the difference between babies and bathwater.