Buddha's soul (or mind if you prefer)

[3bob]

I posted this in another thread where there was apparently no interest in it. (no biggy) . So I'm wondering if there might be any interest and resulting conversation about it here in the Buddhist sub-forum? Btw, if it was the Buddhas own intention to do as sentence #3 says why would any outside prompting be needed? which btw. has some parallel to the incident where he got outside prompting from a great god to continue his teaching when he questioned himself and the value of his doing so post enlightenment? I find such to be in-congruent under the circumstances, how about you?

 

-------------------------------------------------------

I'd say the Buddha talked about maintaining (his soul as an immortal) throughout a "world cycle" * but that didn't happen per this excerpt from the:

Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha
translated from the Pali by Sister Vajira & Francis Story © 1998:

From part Three: "Relinquishing the Will to Live, The Blessed One's Prompting

3. And the Blessed One said: "Whosoever, Ananda, has developed, practiced, employed, strengthened, maintained, scrutinized, and brought to perfection the four constituents of psychic power could, if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of it. [21] The Tathagata, Ananda, has done so. Therefore the Tathagata could, if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of it."

4. But the Venerable Ananda was unable to grasp the plain suggestion, the significant prompting, given by the Blessed One. As though his mind was influenced by Mara, [22] he did not beseech the Blessed One: "May the Blessed One remain, O Lord!. May the Happy One remain, O Lord, throughout the world-period, for the welfare and happiness of the multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, well being, and happiness of gods and men!"

5. And when for a second and a third time the Blessed One repeated his words, the Venerable Ananda remained silent.

6. Then the Blessed One said to the Venerable Ananda: "Go now, Ananda, and do as seems fit to you."
"Even so, O Lord." And the Venerable Ananda, rising from his seat, respectfully saluted the Blessed One, and keeping his right side towards him, took his seat under a tree some distance away."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*description of a world cycle:

Great Aeon or World Cycle (Maha-kappa)
A maha kappa or aeon is generally taken to mean a world cycle.
How long is a world cycle? In Samyutta ii, Chapter XV, the Buddha
used the parables of the hill and mustard-seed for comparison:
• Suppose there was a solid mass, of rock or hill, one yojana
(eight miles) wide, one yojana across and one yojana high and
every hundred years, a man was to stroke it once with a piece of
silk. That mass of rock would be worn away and ended sooner
than would an aeon.
• Suppose there was a city of iron walls, one yojana in length, one
yojana in width, one yojana high and filled with mustard-seeds
to the brim. There-from a man was to take out every hundred
years a mustard-seed. That great pile of mustard-seed would be
emptied and ended sooner than would an aeon.

[C T]

Soul is a conflicting term in Buddhism.

[3bob]

Soul is a conflicting term in Buddhism.

 

Of course it is thus also the term mind which would seemingly be more palatable here (?) but that is secondary to the main line of the Buddhas statement in sentence #3 above which obviously smacks against certain interpretations (and or assumptions from people within or outside the schools) of Buddhism, in other words what was the Buddha talking about in regards to maintaining himself (along with said prompting) as a particular and very, very long term separate form of being whether as a mind or as the four letter word of soul - for a world cycle?

Edited August 31, 2014 by 3bob

[GrandmasterP]

Mind is a conflicting term in Buddhism.

[3bob]

Mind is a conflicting term in Buddhism.

 

you little badger hunter...

[Jeff]

Of course it is thus also the term mind which would seemingly be more palatable here (?) but that is secondary to the main line of the Buddhas statement in sentence #3 above which obviously smacks against certain interpretations (and or assumptions from people within or outside the schools) of Buddhism, in other words what was the Buddha talking about in regards to maintaining himself as a particular and very, very long term separate form of being whether as a mind or as the four letter word of soul - for a world cycle?

 

Hi 3bob,

 

Thank you for this interesting thread. While I agree with your fundamental premise in the quote, I do not see how it is in disagreement with Buddhism. Some form/vehicle "remains" and a Buddha "does stuff/can act". As described in sutra, a Buddha sort of maintains the "transmission" of the perceived world/existence as a stable "bubble" in ultimate emptiness.

 

Best,

Jeff

[C T]

Mind is a conflicting term in Buddhism.

Do you even know what you're saying here, GmP?

[C T]

Of course it is thus also the term mind.

No it is not, and it would certainly help the discussion, if you wish to have one, to be clear about the reference and definition as per tradition.

[GrandmasterP]

Do you even know what you're saying here, GmP?

What makes you ask a question such as that CT old buddy?

On topic though and apologies for joshing earlier...

There are Buddhas and Buddhas out there..

For example Amitabha Buddha resides thusly...

( Mods NB no copyright issues)...

 

http://www.fodian.net/world/0366jcc.htm

Edited August 31, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[3bob]

No it is not, and it would certainly help the discussion, if you wish to have one, to be clear about the reference and definition as per tradition.

 

"Of course it is thus also the term mind", meaning also the use of or thus the term mind which is common in Buddhism

Edited August 31, 2014 by 3bob

[C T]

"Of course it is thus also the term mind", meaning also the use of or thus the term mind which is common in Buddhism

Yes, i see your point, but in Buddhism the 2 are not conflated, which i seem to have interpreted in your OP. It could be an assumption on my part, and if it is, apologies.

[C T]

What makes you ask a question such as that CT old buddy?

On topic though and apologies for joshing earlier...

There are Buddhas and Buddhas out there..

For example Amitabha Buddha resides thusly...

( Mods NB no copyright issues)...

 

http://www.fodian.net/world/0366jcc.htm

It wasn't clear that you were joshing.

[3bob]

Hi 3bob, Thank you for this interesting thread. While I agree with your fundamental premise in the quote, I do not see how it is in disagreement with Buddhism. Some form/vehicle "remains" and a Buddha "does stuff/can act". As described in sutra, a Buddha sort of maintains the "transmission" of the perceived world/existence as a stable "bubble" in ultimate emptiness. Best, Jeff

 

ok some conversation and exchange, thanks - my take from some sources of Buddhism is that is no there continuation of a particular being (along with no reincarnation or maintaining of a particualr being or soul if you will) and in this case or sutta the particualr being of the historic Buddha is talking about remaining and maintaining himself and not just a sort of transmission for a world cycle.

Edited August 31, 2014 by 3bob

[3bob]

Yes, i see your point, but in Buddhism the 2 are not conflated, which i seem to have interpreted in your OP. It could be an assumption on my part, and if it is, apologies.

 

well I'm not ruling out or in such possible conflation for myself, but your point is taken for (most?) schools of Buddhism. But the Buddha is still talking about remaining or maintaining His particular something or being for a world cycle, (although it didn't happen according to that sutta) and I don't take him to mean his physical body.

Edited August 31, 2014 by 3bob

[C T]

well I'm not ruling out or in such possible conflation for myself, but your point is taken for (most?) schools of Buddhism. But the Buddha is still talking about remaining or maintaining His particular something or being for a world cycle, (although it didn't happen according to that sutta) and I don't take him to mean his physical body.

Since it did not happen, then what is going to be discussed would be merely speculative at best. Is that your intention then, to indulge in speculative conversation and debate? Im asking for the sake of clarity, and not making a judgemental statement here.

[3bob]

It wasn't clear that you were joshing.

oh? but he has often joshed and mostly good naturedly

[C T]

oh? but he has often joshed and mostly good naturedly

Yes, have noticed that about GmP's nature here on TTB. A bit of banter can be a useful distraction at times, to remove the tension.

[3bob]

Since it did not happen, then what is going to be discussed would be merely speculative at best. Is that your intention then, to indulge in speculative conversation and debate? Im asking for the sake of clarity, and not making a judgemental statement here.

 

that's a good point which could be directly directed back to the Buddha in making the speculation to begin with and having it transmitted in writing by disciples in a scared and doctrine central Buddhist sutta?

 

Btw, there is still a kind of the parallel incident mentioned in this sutta about a great God prompting the Buddha to continue his teaching when the Buddha was in doubt with himself about doing so post enlightenment. (which no Buddhist I've ever talked to so far is able to explain with congruent reasoning)

Edited August 31, 2014 by 3bob

[doc benway]

I am here,

I have been here,

I will be here...

 

I am being here

 

Be

 

 

I posted this in another thread where there was apparently no interest in it. (no biggy) . So I'm wondering if there might be any interest and resulting conversation about it here in the Buddhist sub-forum? Btw, if it was the Buddhas own intention to do as sentence #3 says why would any outside prompting be needed? which btw. has some parallel to the incident where he got outside prompting from a great god to continue his teaching when he questioned himself and the value of his doing so post enlightenment? I find such to be in-congruent under the circumstances, how about you? -------------------------------------------------------I'd say the Buddha talked about maintaining (his soul as an immortal) throughout a "world cycle" * but that didn't happen per this excerpt from the:Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddhatranslated from the Pali by Sister Vajira & Francis Story © 1998:From part Three: "Relinquishing the Will to Live, The Blessed One's Prompting3. And the Blessed One said: "Whosoever, Ananda, has developed, practiced, employed, strengthened, maintained, scrutinized, and brought to perfection the four constituents of psychic power could, if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of it. [21] The Tathagata, Ananda, has done so. Therefore the Tathagata could, if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of it."4. But the Venerable Ananda was unable to grasp the plain suggestion, the significant prompting, given by the Blessed One. As though his mind was influenced by Mara, [22] he did not beseech the Blessed One: "May the Blessed One remain, O Lord!. May the Happy One remain, O Lord, throughout the world-period, for the welfare and happiness of the multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, well being, and happiness of gods and men!"5. And when for a second and a third time the Blessed One repeated his words, the Venerable Ananda remained silent.6. Then the Blessed One said to the Venerable Ananda: "Go now, Ananda, and do as seems fit to you.""Even so, O Lord." And the Venerable Ananda, rising from his seat, respectfully saluted the Blessed One, and keeping his right side towards him, took his seat under a tree some distance away."----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*description of a world cycle:Great Aeon or World Cycle (Maha-kappa)A maha kappa or aeon is generally taken to mean a world cycle.How long is a world cycle? In Samyutta ii, Chapter XV, the Buddhaused the parables of the hill and mustard-seed for comparison:• Suppose there was a solid mass, of rock or hill, one yojana(eight miles) wide, one yojana across and one yojana high andevery hundred years, a man was to stroke it once with a piece ofsilk. That mass of rock would be worn away and ended soonerthan would an aeon.• Suppose there was a city of iron walls, one yojana in length, oneyojana in width, one yojana high and filled with mustard-seedsto the brim. There-from a man was to take out every hundredyears a mustard-seed. That great pile of mustard-seed would beemptied and ended sooner than would an aeon.

[C T]

that's a good point which could be directly directed back to the Buddha in making the speculation to begin with and having it transmitted in writing by disciples in a scared and doctrine central Buddhist sutta?

Not sure i understand the above. Could you restate the question please, but from another angle perhaps?

[3bob]

I am here, I have been here, I will be here... I am being here Be

 

that's nice Steve but is it not counter to Buddhism and no self?

[Jeff]

ok some conversation and exchange, thanks - my take from some sources of Buddhism is that is no there continuation of a particular being (along with no reincarnation or maintaining of a particualr being or soul if you will) and in this case or sutta the particualr being of the historic Buddha is talking about remaining and maintaining himself and not just a sort of transmission for a world cycle.

 

A Buddha and the resulting transmission are "integrated" or you could say that the perceived transmission is the buddhamind that most perceive as the reality we live in. In particular, both the Lankavatara sutra and the Lotus sutra have very interesting and descriptive aspects to the discussion on this point.

[3bob]

Not sure i understand the above. Could you restate the question please, but from another angle perhaps?

 

why did the Buddha start this line of teaching in this sutta if it is just speculation and not fact to Him?

[Jeff]

that's a good point which could be directly directed back to the Buddha in making the speculation to begin with and having it transmitted in writing by disciples in a scared and doctrine central Buddhist sutta?

 

Btw, there is still a kind of the parallel incident mentioned in this sutta about a great God prompting the Buddha to continue his teaching when the Buddha was in doubt with himself about doing so post enlightenment. (which no Buddhist I've ever talked to so far is able to explain with congruent reasoning)

 

Could that great God be Siva...?

 

[3bob]

A Buddha and the resulting transmission are "integrated" or you could say that the perceived transmission is the buddhamind that most perceive as the reality we live in. In particular, both the Lankavatara sutra and the Lotus sutra have very interesting and descriptive aspects to the discussion on this point.

 

do you not see a contradiction to that in regards to this sutta, namely that the Buddha said such did not happen in that He did not remain as a particular being although he could have?