Soul in Buddhism

[old3bob]

"Classic Jonang shentong holds that while all relative phenomena are empty of inherent existence (svabhava), ultimate reality (paramartha-satya) is not empty of its own inherent existence.^[3] In this view, ultimate reality, the buddha-wisdom (buddha-jñana) or buddha-nature (buddhadhātu), is only empty of relative and defiled phenomena, but it is not empty of its countless awakened qualities."

 

fine expression and so logical that such is often lost in super convoluted talk

Edited August 2 by old3bob

[Taoist Texts]

2 hours ago, johndoe2012 said:

Someone more knowledgeable ..would suggest his realization was lower than that of Gautama Buddha. 

of course they would,  because they personally  surpassed his realization and personally reached Gautama's  realization too!  

[Chang dao ling]

2 hours ago, johndoe2012 said:

 

Similar to Daoist meditation, focus on abdomen until a light appears, supernatural abilities etc. 

 

Someone more knowledgeable than me would suggest his realization was lower than that of Gautama Buddha. 

Of course he is. However the main point is he re discovered buddha's original meditation method. Yes he is arhat of course he is lower than buddha 

[johndoe2012]

1 hour ago, Chang dao ling said:

Of course he is. However the main point is he re discovered buddha's original meditation method. Yes he is arhat of course he is lower than buddha 

That is what SN Goenka also said, that his vipassana meditation + metta were the original methods the Buddha used 

 

https://www.vridhamma.org/node/1947

[forestofclarity]

9 hours ago, tao.te.kat said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangtong_and_shentong

 

I don't consider Wikipedia to be authoritative in terms of spirituality, so I doubt we will be able to have a fruitful discussion.  

 

However, in that wikipedia article, the source, Lama Hookham in the same work writes: 

 

Quote

Whereas Rangtong is accessible though both logical analysis and meditation experience Shentong is only accessible through meditation experience. It is Reality as revealed to the Yogi and, at a verbal level, can only be taught through intimation, imagery, symbols and so forth.

 

This is all throughout the non-wikipedia shentong literature and teachings. 

 

Your posts have made several errors in my view. One is to separate and oppose rangtong and shentong. The Jonangpas as far as I know study rangtong first to help clear the mind of fixation and conceptual elaboration, but I don't know many Jonangpas. The other is to turn Buddhanature as a thing (also a common error in Vedanta, fwiw). The third is deny that Buddhanature has function. 

 

On 8/1/2024 at 4:18 AM, tao.te.kat said:

The unorthodox but tolerated Shentong approach says that there's something, a substrate, an essence of somekind, with is devoid of any characteristic of any skandha, but it's there and it's permanent. Shentong means "other emptiness" because of that. So this can be seen as some form of Atta, as long as one understand that is devoid of any characteristic and functioning. It's more like the energy that moves us (not being really that), Sometimes it's been used the example of a lion made of gold. So gold really exists as such in that case. While for Rangtong gold will be also composed and impermanent.

 

I don't agree Buddhanature is a something, and or that there is no function. You might be thinking of samkhya and importing it into Buddhism without fully understanding the context. The acquired mind seems that it simply cannot conceive of objectlessness, so it is constantly supplying a steady stream of objects to fill that mental habit. 

 

If some one wants to learn more about this, there are plenty of works outside of wikipedia (Khenchen Thrangu, Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso, Jamgon Kongtrul, Ju Mipham Rinpoches, Karmapa III for example). However, there is no substitute for guidance under an experienced teacher. 

 

 

[Nungali]

On 7/31/2024 at 2:34 AM, Taoist Texts said:

nah, if he had no self and no soul, how come he has a name?

 

but joking aside, this

is nonsense which the ignorant westerners parrot. there is no such teaching in buddhism. as usual the truth is the exact opposite of the western  nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anattā#No_denial_of_self

 

 

 

It seems it is a 'correction of the view of self '  .... it attempts to  dispel the illusion about self (and soul )    ?

 

 

Like ; " There is no God ! "   

 

Really ?

 

Well, there is no God ..... like you perceive him.

[tao.te.kat]

>I don't consider Wikipedia to be authoritative in terms of spirituality

 

It's just a question of commodity and I presume you did the same for the same reasons.

 

I've read a lot of Mipham and Thrangu Rinpoche and some others you said (not all them) too. Our views are not exactly the same. No problem to me. I also know some Kagyupas and others have a Shentong view clearly or not so clearly.  Anyway it's ok, not interested in endless debates about this. Thanks for your opinion.

 

Best regards

Edited August 3 by tao.te.kat

[idiot_stimpy]

Quote

ālaya-consciousness ［阿頼耶識］ ( ālaya-vijnāna;  araya-shiki): Also, storehouse consciousness, never-perishing consciousness, or maintaining-consciousness (ādāna-consciousness). According to the Consciousness-Only school, the eighth and deepest of the eight consciousnesses; ālaya means abode, dwelling, or receptacle, and vijnāna means discernment. Located below the realms of conscious awareness, it is called the storehouse consciousness, because all karma created in the present and previous lifetimes is stored there. It is also called the never-perishing consciousness, because the karmic seeds preserved there continue even after death, and the maintaining-consciousness, because it maintains the life and body of a sentient being. The ālaya-consciousness is regarded as that which undergoes the cycle of birth and death, and determines the nature of individual existence. All the actions and experiences of life that occur through the first seven consciousnesses, such as sight, hearing, touch, and mind, are accumulated as karma in this ālaya-consciousness, which in turn exerts an influence on the workings of these seven. The Consciousness-Only school, which postulates the existence of the eight consciousnesses, holds that all phenomena arise from the ālaya-consciousness and that the ālaya-consciousness is the only reality.

https://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/dic/Content/A/41

When someone talks about a soul, my personal guess is it relates to the Buddhist concept of alaya consciousness. 

[Chang dao ling]

30 minutes ago, idiot_stimpy said:

When someone talks about a soul, my personal guess is it relates to the Buddhist concept of alaya consciousness. 

Thanks 👍. This is what I am looking for 

[tao.te.kat]

Alaya is deep and subtle,
all its seeds flowing like a river.
Because it might incorrectly be conceived as a self, 
I have not taught it to the ignorant.

 

Sandhinirmocana sutra

[snowymountains]

On 7/31/2024 at 4:19 PM, Maddie said:

I think it's commonly mistakenly believed that the Buddha said there was no self. What he actually said was that the five aggregates were not self. When asked if there was a self or not a self the Buddha refused to answer this question.

 

Hey @Maddie, do you recall in which Sutta this story (the Buddha refusing to answer) is recounted ?

[old3bob]

not many Buddhists have posted the summation below from the historic Buddha, why not who knows?

 

“There is, Oh Monks, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded.”

— Buddha 

 

which I'd say  also has relation to the Jonang shentong quote... alas such will be beaten to death by various sects and experts.

Edited August 7 by old3bob

[Maddie]

10 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

Hey @Maddie, do you recall in which Sutta this story (the Buddha refusing to answer) is recounted ?

I'll have to look that up and get back with you. I have read so many sutas they all start to become a blur after a while lol. But in general in a lot of suitas were the Buddha is talking about non-self this is the context in which he's talking about it.

[tao.te.kat]

Problem with a statement from a sutta is that there're hundreds that say the opposite.

 

So it cannot be used as anykind of refutation or global afirmation, because its authority is not over the other suttas. So what to do?

 

Well, just what happens in the world. You can think one or the other.

 

100 suttas says A, and maybe three says B.

 

So 100 buddhist usually think A, and some other (less people) like Jonang school thinks B.

 

As long as we understand what it means every choice, you're free to have your own ideas.

 

So, there's a soul un buddhism? Moslty no, but for some minority, yes. In the form of the shentong approach. Which is quite different from hinduist atman or abrahamic souls.

 

That's not very orthodox, or course, because is an uncomfortable truth but it's as things are.

 

About "buddha not answering" here you have a resum:

 

The unanswerable questions - Wikipedia

 

Is good to remember that Buddhism is not very interested in metaphisic answers. It's aim is practical, not theoretical, It's removing suffering. That's why all this is so subject to opinions, because it really can be both ways and be a path to release in both cases.

 

There's the famous parable of the arrow and talking about its shape, color or essence instead of taking care of the injured... That's the buddha view about it.

Edited August 8 by tao.te.kat

[old3bob]

4 hours ago, tao.te.kat said:

Problem with a statement from a sutta is that there're hundreds that say the opposite.

 

So it cannot be used as anykind of refutation or global afirmation, because its authority is not over the other suttas. So what to do?

 

Well, just what happens in the world. You can think one or the other.

 

100 suttas says A, and maybe three says B.

 

So 100 buddhist usually think A, and some other (less people) like Jonang school thinks B.

 

As long as we understand what it means every choice, you're free to have your own ideas.

 

So, there's a soul un buddhism? Moslty no, but for some minority, yes. In the form of the shentong approach. Which is quite different from hinduist atman or abrahamic souls.

 

That's not very orthodox, or course, because is an uncomfortable truth but it's as things are.

 

About "buddha not answering" here you have a resum:

 

The unanswerable questions - Wikipedia

 

Is good to remember that Buddhism is not very interested in metaphisic answers. It's aim is practical, not theoretical, It's removing suffering. That's why all this is so subject to opinions, because it really can be both ways and be a path to release in both cases.

 

There's the famous parable of the arrow and talking about its shape, color or essence instead of taking care of the injured... That's the buddha view about it.

 

ok, but that short quote  is still the final summation by the founder of Buddhism of lets say ten thousand volumes of Buddhist writings.

Edited August 8 by old3bob

[snowymountains]

On 8/8/2024 at 10:02 AM, tao.te.kat said:

Problem with a statement from a sutta is that there're hundreds that say the opposite.

 

So it cannot be used as anykind of refutation or global afirmation, because its authority is not over the other suttas. So what to do?

 

Well, just what happens in the world. You can think one or the other.

 

100 suttas says A, and maybe three says B.

 

So 100 buddhist usually think A, and some other (less people) like Jonang school thinks B.

 

As long as we understand what it means every choice, you're free to have your own ideas.

 

It is, by its nature, a theological question of how the suttas are to be interpreted. For each theological question there are different theologians expressing different views and non-theologians who may have their own views.

Nothing wrong with that.

 

On 8/8/2024 at 10:02 AM, tao.te.kat said:

About "buddha not answering" here you have a resum:

 

The unanswerable questions - Wikipedia

 

Per wiki page "The Buddha states that it is unwise to be attached to both views of having and perceiving a self and views about not having a self" and links this PDF as source, which is an interesting read that's not fully aligned with the no-self mantra that's popular, at least online.

 

On 8/8/2024 at 10:02 AM, tao.te.kat said:

Is good to remember that Buddhism is not very interested in metaphisic answers. It's aim is practical, not theoretical, It's removing suffering. That's why all this is so subject to opinions, because it really can be both ways and be a path to release in both cases.

 

There's the famous parable of the arrow and talking about its shape, color or essence instead of taking care of the injured... That's the buddha view about it.

 

It's about both, there's plenty of metaphysics too in the Suttas, as well as attempts of what it looks to day an early attempt to study physical phenomena scientifically, of course these attempts were limited by the knowledge they had in that era.

Many of these we know to be factually wrong today of course which is why they're not as popular but they're also part of Buddhist teachings.

 

The Buddha, like few other men of his era, was an experiential philosopher, he's very interesting to read and recommended a lot of good practices but ultimately nothing is to be taken at face value and one may as well both read the suttas and do their own research on each topic and have their own experiences etc.