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.

[Tommy]

I believe (and I could definitely be wrong about this) is that self and self are two different things. There is the self or this person. What we call the physical being.  And there is the self that is the mental construct from thoughts. The physical being has what is called composite. Stuff made from other stuff. The other stuff being what does not break down into something else. There is what I believe is the thing that gets reborn. Then, there is the self that is made from the mental construct of thoughts. That self is a composite when broken down has no basic stuff other than what is left after the physical body is decomposed. This self does not continue after the death of the body.

 

I do not know if I am right or wrong. But, it is what I believe from my understanding. When we sit in meditation, the practice is to let thoughts go and develop concentration. Letting thoughts go helps to separate the real person from the construct of self that comes from identifying with thoughts. This doesn't mean thoughts are a failure of self. Rather it is the way we presently understand the environment around us. How we cope and live. But, when we get to experience life thru the real self, we see what can be called an illusion and what is real. A different perspective.

 

If one want to go deeper then there are more words about the five skandhas. And how this self is broken down or what it is made up from. Understanding that will take a more experienced or enlightened person. Even when it was explained to me, I did not understand. So, my mind could not grasp what was taught at the time. It is only when I spend more time sitting that some of it becomes clear. Well, who knows? I could be fooling myself?? Thanks for reading and I hope your journey is as interesting as you wished it to be.

[old3bob]

5 hours ago, Tommy said:

I believe (and I could definitely be wrong about this) is that self and self are two different things. There is the self or this person. What we call the physical being.  And there is the self that is the mental construct from thoughts. The physical being has what is called composite. Stuff made from other stuff. The other stuff being what does not break down into something else. There is what I believe is the thing that gets reborn. Then, there is the self that is made from the mental construct of thoughts. That self is a composite when broken down has no basic stuff other than what is left after the physical body is decomposed. This self does not continue after the death of the body.

 

I do not know if I am right or wrong. But, it is what I believe from my understanding. When we sit in meditation, the practice is to let thoughts go and develop concentration. Letting thoughts go helps to separate the real person from the construct of self that comes from identifying with thoughts. This doesn't mean thoughts are a failure of self. Rather it is the way we presently understand the environment around us. How we cope and live. But, when we get to experience life thru the real self, we see what can be called an illusion and what is real. A different perspective.

 

If one want to go deeper then there are more words about the five skandhas. And how this self is broken down or what it is made up from. Understanding that will take a more experienced or enlightened person. Even when it was explained to me, I did not understand. So, my mind could not grasp what was taught at the time. It is only when I spend more time sitting that some of it becomes clear. Well, who knows? I could be fooling myself?? Thanks for reading and I hope your journey is as interesting as you wished it to be.

 

Is Buddhism meant to blow the mind, which can then end up worse or better off.  Sometimes sounds that way via what are it's different sects, sayings and teachings that are not all in agreement, even among it's newer masters and sect founders on key and important points.  Btw. Alan Watts had some useful sayings to help "western" folks get useable handles on Buddhism in general.  For myself I'll go with the Upanishads that don't disagree with each other although the many Sects of Hinduism which may refer to the Upanishads are also not in agreement on all sayings or teachings on key and important points.

Good fortune to you Tommy...

Edited October 3 by old3bob

[tao.te.kat]

> I could be fooling myself?? 

 

Your view is quite correct in buddhism.

 

The view of the skandhas is from initial buddhism. Later other compatible views were taught which I think are more clear on this.

 

Letting aside material world (your body) which is clear that will disappear. Mahayana Buddhism teaches eight forms of vijnana, or mind processing (sometimes called "consciousness").

 

The first five are the five senses and their associated processing

The sixth is the conceptual thinking process that's where people mostly pass their lives.

The seventh is a non-conceptual mind function that "Wants" and "rejects" objects from the six previous vijnanas.

The eigth or alaya is the deeper layer and stores our karma and samskaras. 

 

Of them all only alaya moves from one life to the next.

 

While usually we work for purifying the sixth, release will come from purifying the seventh and eigth. But of course there's a process of acquiring of 7th and 8th from the 6th and the others five. You only want and reject things you know (or think of).

 

Desires get stored in Alaya, so releasing attachments implies purifying Alaya, and so on...

 

Hope it helps.

 

 

Edited October 4 by tao.te.kat

[stirling]

On 10/3/2024 at 6:52 AM, Tommy said:

I believe (and I could definitely be wrong about this) is that self and self are two different things. There is the self or this person. What we call the physical being.  And there is the self that is the mental construct from thoughts. The physical being has what is called composite. Stuff made from other stuff. The other stuff being what does not break down into something else. There is what I believe is the thing that gets reborn. Then, there is the self that is made from the mental construct of thoughts. That self is a composite when broken down has no basic stuff other than what is left after the physical body is decomposed. This self does not continue after the death of the body.

 

With enough practice and insight it is actually possible to see that both the conceptual mind's mental constructs are "empty", AND that even the separate objects we mentally assign material reality are too. All dualities - self and other, far and near, yesterday and tomorrow - can eventually been seen as illusory. What IS real is the empty, unlabeled phenomena that appear and disappear in awareness moment to moment, and even a dedicated meditator of only a month or so can be pointed toward this reality, though it will still take plenty of work to have real insight into it. 

 

On 10/3/2024 at 6:52 AM, Tommy said:

When we sit in meditation, the practice is to let thoughts go and develop concentration. Letting thoughts go helps to separate the real person from the construct of self that comes from identifying with thoughts. This doesn't mean thoughts are a failure of self. Rather it is the way we presently understand the environment around us. How we cope and live. But, when we get to experience life thru the real self, we see what can be called an illusion and what is real. A different perspective.

 

Try this: In those moments where there is a gap and no thoughts are present, don't rush back to your meditation object. Rather, try to just rest, relaxed and without concentration or effort, in those gaps. Let the mind just be spontaneously present with no object or practice except noticing feelings, thoughts and perceptions arise in awareness and pass without engaging the thought process. The more you do it, the more you can rest in awareness. Once you can do this for seconds or 10's of seconds at a time, point awareness, with eyes open,  at the objects in your view, or even your "self". Are they separate without the thinking mind? Are there really separate sense doors? What IS "self" without the thought process, or is there one at all?

 

On 10/3/2024 at 6:52 AM, Tommy said:

If one want to go deeper then there are more words about the five skandhas. And how this self is broken down or what it is made up from. Understanding that will take a more experienced or enlightened person. Even when it was explained to me, I did not understand. So, my mind could not grasp what was taught at the time. It is only when I spend more time sitting that some of it becomes clear. Well, who knows? I could be fooling myself?? Thanks for reading and I hope your journey is as interesting as you wished it to be.

 

Probably what you were taught was a non-dual pointing. Your mind will NEVER grasp a teaching like that. It can't. It is something you must EXPERIENCE, and the only way to do that is with meditation OR actual insight. 

[Sherman Krebbs]

Seems like the term "soul" can mean a lot of things to a lot of people.  My own conception is that existence is all "soul," or at least all "soul" in the way most people would understand that term.  The corporal world only exists in the mind (largely just keeping us from bumping into things) masking the deeper fabric in which we exist.  Just my conception, which is conceptual as any other.  Deeper existential reality can't really be understood by the mind, but with practice, diligence and virtue, it can be experienced and realized.  Just a few of my own personal feelings on the matter.  

[forestofclarity]

Personally, I wouldn't mix up Buddhism and Vedanta. Both of them present maps, or a raft, but don't confuse the map with the territory. Choose one that speaks to you personally more (or is more accessible) and go deeply into that one. Buddhism goes with not self as a strategy, while Vedanta goes with self. For example, if I tell you to make a right, or three lefts, you may end up in the same place. Flipping back and forth between self and no-self is a good way to remain struggling--- it's like going right, then left, then right, then left. 

 

Rest assured that muddle headed sectarianism aside, you can't really make a bad choice IMO. 

[blue eyed snake]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

it is actually possible to see that both the conceptual mind's mental constructs are "empty", AND that even the separate objects we mentally assign material reality are too. All dualities - self and other, far and near, yesterday and tomorrow - can eventually been seen as illusory. What IS real is the empty, unlabeled phenomena that appear and disappear in awareness moment to moment,

 

nice, thank you