Buddha's soul (or mind if you prefer)

[3bob]

Could that great God be Siva...?

 

Or Lord Brahma? (although this sutta has another name which I don't know much about)

[Jeff]

 

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?

Not at all. It goes more to the whether one wants to be a particular character in the "video game" or rather become one with the game itself and be able to upgrade the game or create an entire new video game (as described in the Lotus sutra).

 

An in game full Buddha requires a very advanced version of the game to be able to manifest. In the Lotus sutra this is described as a twin tower (or many jeweled) Buddha. When such a Buddha "grows out of" the existing mind/world system, the "founding Buddha" sort of turns over the keys (or bows down to as described in the Lotus sutra). This is part of the definition of the "one vehicle".

 

(Edit - word misspell)

Edited August 31, 2014 by Jeff

[3bob]

Hello Jeff, I get your following concep quoted belowt:

 

"...It goes more to the whether one wants to be a particular character in the "video game" or rather become one with the game itself and be able to upgrade the game or create an entire new video game (as described in the Lotus sutra)."

 

(space) To which I'd say if the essence of Dharma is already finished and complete the game only appears to change...

 

But again and from my earlier post: "my take from some sources of Buddhism is that is no there continuation of a particular being [or video character as you put it] (along with no reincarnation or maintaining of a particualr being or soul if you will) and [or but] in this case or in this sutta the particular being of the historic Buddha is talking about remaining and maintaining himself and not just as a sort of transmission for a world cycle."

 

edit: straightened out my text a little

Edited August 31, 2014 by 3bob

[steve]

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

nope -

 

Too many words, gets me stumbled up.

Being is enough

It's OK to head directly into it with total trust.

Space and clarity are inseparable

In all three times

[3bob]

Steve,

That may your interpretation which happens to be along the lines of how I see things but it is not of the four-fold negation from Buddhism, and it also alludes to eternal-ism which I'm kind of surprised that some of our Buddhist brothers are not refuting?

 

Anyway, and so far I don't feel that I've gotten honest, straight forward answers (although Jeff tried in a round about way) to the text I submitted to this sub-forum. For instance no one has given what I would describe as a reasonable answer such as, "I honestly don't know why the Buddha would be in such serious self-doubt about continuing his teaching after post enlightenment nor do I know why He would need prompting from a great God to overcome that doubt and carry on per his original aim?" Nor has anyone said, "I don't know why the Buddha would need prompting from Ananda to remain for a world cycle to further help beings as he had been doing, and to do so as asked from others who may have needed it besides Ananda, who apparently didn't feel that need at the time of said event? Not to mention when the Buddha declares it was possible for Him to remain for a world cycle as a particular being... along with my pondering as to the use of terms like soul or mind to apply for that particular beings form (or some other term) remains hanging.

 

Granted, this is from my pov but I see no stretch in making it in relation to what I believe many others would also see.... btw, such results (so far) are often par for course on this website where many of us act like such "experts". (me included)

Edited September 1, 2014 by 3bob

[Jeff]

Hello Jeff, I get your following concep quoted belowt:

 

"...It goes more to the whether one wants to be a particular character in the "video game" or rather become one with the game itself and be able to upgrade the game or create an entire new video game (as described in the Lotus sutra)."

 

(space) To which I'd say if the essence of Dharma is already finished and complete the game only appears to change...

 

But again and from my earlier post: "my take from some sources of Buddhism is that is no there continuation of a particular being [or video character as you put it] (along with no reincarnation or maintaining of a particualr being or soul if you will) and [or but] in this case or in this sutta the particular being of the historic Buddha is talking about remaining and maintaining himself and not just as a sort of transmission for a world cycle."

 

edit: straightened out my text a little

 

"To which I'd say if the essence of Dharma is already finished and complete the game only appears to change."

 

That is because you are more a "Self" or "One with no second" guy. Ultimate emptiness is different and as such, there are can be unlimited numbers of bubbles of "One with no second".

 

Also, as I said above, I do not know of anything in Buddhism that says that there can be no relative "being/soul" that can maintain coherence for a universe cycle. That is essentially the definition of a Taoist "immortal".

 

In the video game analogy, one usually just transfers their "consciousness/soul" to a light body or they sort of take over/reside as a fixture of the game (which could be something like a mountain, star or even a being like an angel/god).

 

Best,

Jeff

[3bob]

Jeff,

The description in mainline Buddhism that talks about reincarnation is not reincarnation of a particular soul/being, is it?

 

Also I'd say the world cycles in principle are the same they (may) only appear different, regardless of ultimate emptiness or multiple bubbles concepts.

 

No takers yet for:

"I honestly don't know why the Buddha would be in such serious self-doubt about continuing his teaching after post enlightenment nor do I know why He would need prompting from a great God to overcome that doubt and carry on per his original aim?" Nor has anyone said, "I don't know why the Buddha would need prompting from Ananda to remain for a world cycle to further help beings as he had been doing, and to do so as asked from others who may have needed it besides Ananda, who apparently didn't feel that need at the time of said event?

Edited September 1, 2014 by 3bob

[Jeff]

Jeff,

The description in mainline Buddhism that talks about reincarnation is not reincarnation of a particular soul/being, is it?

 

Also I'd say the world cycles in principle are the same they only appear different, regardless of ultimate emptiness or multiple bubbles concepts.

 

No takers yet for:

"I honestly don't know why the Buddha would be in such serious self-doubt about continuing his teaching after post enlightenment nor do I know why He would need prompting from a great God to overcome that doubt and carry on per his original aim?" Nor has anyone said, "I don't know why the Buddha would need prompting from Ananda to remain for a world cycle to further help beings as he had been doing, and to do so as asked from others who may have needed it besides Ananda, who apparently didn't feel that need at the time of said event?

 

Hi 3bob,

 

On your reincarnation point... In absolute terms, in Buddhism there is no "soul" (only emptiness), but in relative terms there is such a "vehicle", such a thing is the relative basis of perception in buddhamind (mind system/existence). I am sure it is discussed in other sutras, but the Lotus sutra goes into detail of such a vehicle and how it becomes a "Buddha".

 

Also, on your "no takers" point, I will bite...

 

The statement, is more like a pointing out of the "choice" that a emerging Buddha has to make than any real problem (similar to the inverse choice of gospel story of Jesus being offered earthly rulership by the devil as a last test). Maintaining "cohesion" in manifest physical form is very limiting. While not exactly the same, this type (or problem) is described in a different way by Swami Lakshmanjoo in the book The Secret Surpreme.

 

"In the kingdom of spirituality. Lord Siva creates masters and disciples through His fifth act, the act of grace (anugraha). This grace is ninefold and, therefore. He creates masters and disciples in nine different ways.

 

The first and highest level of grace is called tivrativra sak-tipata. Tivrativra saktipata means "super supreme grace." When Lord Siva bestows super supreme grace on anyone, then that person becomes perfectly self-recognized. He knows his real nature completely and in perfection. At the same time, however, this kind of intense grace can not be resisted by his body, so he throws away his body and dies. This person becomes a master; however, he accomplishes the act of his mastery secretly in the deserving hearts of disciples. He is not visible in this world. Only those who are deserving experience his subtle existence. "

 

Thanks for the discussion,

Jeff

[3bob]

Jeff,

Mixing Shaivite or Kashmir Hinduism and Buddhism is a no no for Shaivite or Kashmir Sat Gurus and Buddhist Lama's, but we can do that here if we are not bound by vows to any particular school, is that what you are saying in effect by doing so? I would tend to not say or do that myself as a student who surely leans towards Hinduism although I don't mind some comparative study of Buddhism. Also I don't get your analogy with Jesus since the temptation was pre-surrender, not post? Thus your bite to me doesn't put any teeth into why the Buddha needed various promptings post enlightenment.

 

Thanks also for the discussion,

Bob

Edited September 1, 2014 by 3bob

[steve]

Steve,

That may your interpretation which happens to be along the lines of how I see things but it is not of the four-fold negation from Buddhism, and it also alludes to eternal-ism which I'm kind of surprised that some of our Buddhist brothers are not refuting?

 

Anyway, and so far I don't feel that I've gotten honest, straight forward answers (although Jeff tried in a round about way) to the text I submitted to this sub-forum. For instance no one has given what I would describe as a reasonable answer such as, "I honestly don't know why the Buddha would be in such serious self-doubt about continuing his teaching after post enlightenment nor do I know why He would need prompting from a great God to overcome that doubt and carry on per his original aim?" Nor has anyone said, "I don't know why the Buddha would need prompting from Ananda to remain for a world cycle to further help beings as he had been doing, and to do so as asked from others who may have needed it besides Ananda, who apparently didn't feel that need at the time of said event? Not to mention when the Buddha declares it was possible for Him to remain for a world cycle as a particular being... along with my pondering as to the use of terms like soul or mind to apply for that particular beings form (or some other term) remains hanging.

 

Granted, this is from my pov but I see no stretch in making it in relation to what I believe many others would also see.... btw, such results (so far) are often par for course on this website where many of us act like such "experts". (me included)

 

I'll have to disagree with you regarding your first paragraph.

For me, personally, what I am saying, feeling, and working on in my own practice is completely consistent with the fourfold negation and is not eternalism.

 

I don't like to try and use words for this but what other way to communicate online?

 

There is a difference between emptiness and non-existence.

And there is a difference between clarity and over-identification.

 

When we approach reality from the intellect, especially on the Buddhist path, it is easy to negate, negate, negate and get so wrapped up in our concept of emptiness that we we close off to the richness and fullness of being. That is the error of nihilism.

When we have a direct experience of emptiness and see and feel its relationship to the infinite potential for manifestation, that error is no longer a problem.

 

When we approach reality from the cushion, we may get very wrapped up in the feelings, experiences, "powers," and so on, and there is a tendency to over-identify with this experience of being and this is the error of eternalism. When we have a direct experience of connecting to the fullness and richness of reality and yet there is no over-identification, we are able to maintain certainty in the impermanence of that experience, then eternalism is no longer a problem.

 

And I'm not really that well versed in the theory and texts so I'm sure some better educated folks can debate me around in circles.

 

[3bob]

Steve,

No offense but you are now saying something very different from:

 

"I am here,

I have been here,
I will be here...

I am being here

Be"

 

I don't have a universal translator on so the prose above strongly points to eternal-ism to me, no matter how you dice it. (and especially if you compare it with standard Buddhist four-fold negation) Anyhow, your dialogue is kind and people orientated which I appreciate. (namely in what I take as Right Speech )

[Jeff]

Jeff,

Mixing Shaivite or Kashmir Hinduism and Buddhism is a no no for Shaivite or Kashmir Sat Gurus and Buddhist Lama's, but we can do that here if we are not bound by vows to any particular school, is that what you are saying in effect by doing so? I would tend to not say or do that myself as a student who surely leans towards Hinduism although I don't mind some comparative study of Buddhism. Also I don't get your analogy with Jesus since the temptation was pre-surrender, not post? Thus your bite to me doesn't put any teeth into why the Buddha needed various promptings post enlightenment.

 

Thanks also for the discussion,

Bob

 

Hi Bob,

 

Since, I have always just been one who "dives deep", I don see the problem with leveraging useful descriptions, but I will endeavor to stay more tradition "pure" on the points.

 

What we are describing is the realization of such a depth in consciousness/reality where one can cross over/ascend beyond the physical form. Such a realization is "beyond" the classic definition of "enlightenment" in most traditions. In Buddhism, there is a big difference between a Buddha and an arhat (enlightened). In mystical Christianity, it is similar with the difference between a "Christ" and the "realization of the soul".

 

Also, it must be remembered that unlike the concept of "cessation" with enlightenment in Hindu type traditions, a Buddha maintains a "vehicle" and as such is still sort of a "distinct" being until it ultimately "lets go" back into ultimate emptiness. A Buddha maintain "cohesion" to help all sentient beings, that is the purpose of the bodhisattva vow.

 

Best,

Jeff

[steve]

Steve,

No offense but you are now saying something very different from:

 

"I am here,

I have been here,

I will be here...

I am being here

Be"

 

I don't have a universal translator on so the prose above strongly points to eternal-ism to me, no matter how you dice it. (and especially if you compare it with standard Buddhist four-fold negation) Anyhow, your dialogue is kind and people orientated which I appreciate. (namely in what I take as Right Speech )

I appreciate the kind words.

No offense taken and none intended, although your interpretation of my ramblings is your problem.

 

My view hasn't changed since yesterday although when I begin to type, I'm never quite sure what'll come out!

 

Don't mind me - I'm on vacation...

Haha

[3bob]

Hi Jeff,

 

Cessation is not a common description or concept of enlightenment as far as I've come across in Hinduism! In fact what is common is the opposite of that, namely an immortal soul attaining Sivaloka or Brahmaloka, etc... In fact I don't remember ever hearing that term used in Hinduism for enlightenment (or moksha), although merger is a term that some schools use which could be called a sort of cessation.

 

I don't know all the terms and meanings for different types of Buddhas but the meaning I've been using throughout this thread is in relation to the historic Buddha. Nor am I familiar with the terms "realization of the soul" being found in the Bible although something like that could be found in mystical Christianity which can range all over the map from a-z.

 

"A Buddha maintain "cohesion" to help all sentient beings, that is the purpose of the bodhisattva vow" That sounds good to me but why do you think the historic Buddha would need prompting to do such? And why is reincarnation in Buddhism not pointing that out instead of saying absolute things like there is no soul?

Edited September 1, 2014 by 3bob

[3bob]

I appreciate the kind words.

No offense taken and none intended, although your interpretation of my ramblings is your problem.

 

My view hasn't changed since yesterday although when I begin to type, I'm never quite sure what'll come out!

 

Don't mind me - I'm on vacation...

Haha

 

ok, it is my problem but it's also your problem if you mean one thing and it sounds like you are saying the opposite by almost any standard of measure for the meanings of the words and sentences that you used. (?) I love those koans but your words were not really in koan form if that is what you mean?

Edited September 1, 2014 by 3bob

[Jeff]

 

[since not really related just moving to you OP topic]

....

 

"A Buddha maintain "cohesion" to help all sentient beings, that is the purpose of the bodhisattva vow" That sounds good to me but why do you think the historic Buddha would need prompting to do such? And why is reincarnation in Buddhism not pointing that out instead of saying absolute things like there is no soul?

 

One must remember that sutra is an earlier (or lower) method, hence the text is for a more normal mind level communication of understanding a Buddha. Hence, rather than truly needing the prompting, it is a story communication device to point out the choice (or sacrifice) that Buddha makes in continuing on. The sacrifice is actually "huge".

 

On the no soul point, since I am not Buddhist, it is probably not for me to say. But,...

 

Buddhism as a path/framework is based upon first realizing "clarity of mind". Things like energy stuff are not introduced until clarity of mind is stabilized. If one is holding on to the concept of a "soul" or "self", it becomes very difficult to clearly realize the true clear light of mind. It is basically a clear mind only path at the beginning.

 

As opposed to more energy (tantric) systems like KS, where the approach is to force a similar level of mental clarity with overwhelming energy (through devotion), where one becomes "nothing" in God/Shiva. Both, are first stage (enlightenment) levels where one experiences "quiet mind" or feels like they are "naturally responding" with no thought. In Buddhism, this realization is the first half of the heart sutra, or knowing that form collapses down to and equals void.

 

Each approach has it's own pros and cons, but at the Shiva vs. Ultimate emptiness level they ultimately point to different things.

 

Best,

Jeff

[3bob]

One must remember that sutra is an earlier (or lower) method, hence the text is for a more normal mind level communication of understanding a Buddha. Hence, rather than truly needing the prompting, it is a story communication device to point out the choice (or sacrifice) that Buddha makes in continuing on. The sacrifice is actually "huge". On the no soul point, since I am not Buddhist, it is probably not for me to say. But,... Buddhism as a path/framework is based upon first realizing "clarity of mind". Things like energy stuff are not introduced until clarity of mind is stabilized. If one is holding on to the concept of a "soul" or "self", it becomes very difficult to clearly realize the true clear light of mind. It is basically a clear mind only path at the beginning. As opposed to more energy (tantric) systems like KS, where the approach is to force a similar level of mental clarity with overwhelming energy (through devotion), where one becomes "nothing" in God/Shiva. Both, are first stage (enlightenment) levels where one experiences "quiet mind" or feels like they are "naturally responding" with no thought. In Buddhism, this realization is the first half of the heart sutra, or knowing that form collapses down to and equals void. Each approach has it's own pros and cons, but at the Shiva vs. Ultimate emptiness level they ultimately point to different things. Best, Jeff

 

Thanks for the good attempt at explaining from your understanding Jeff!

 

In Shaivite religion I believe its major schools go with the saying of, "Jiva is Siva" thus not the saying of, "one becomes nothing in God/Shiva " which has or can have all sorts of problematic connotations or meanings! Also clear mind is not equated with enlightenment in most (or any?) forms of Hinduism, although a clear and quiet mind is very important on the way to Self-realization. I suggest you read the *Isa upanishad about being and non-being (and other upanishads) as a review for the Vedas. (which the Buddha obviously rejected per his doctrine)

 

* link to Isa upanishad: http://www.sankaracharya.org/isa_upanishad.php

[Jeff]

Hi Bob,

 

I may have been somewhat unclear in my meaning in the above statement, as I said "first stage" relative to enlightenment.

 

Jiva is Siva would more equate to what I would call the second stage in a classic Buddhist framework. This is after one has realized the soul, and is now integrating into all "reality/Siva" and in Buddhism utilizes what is called "completion stage" (tantric-energy) practices. This is the second half of the Heart sutra, void creates and is equal to all form. Realizing ultimate emptiness is knowing both are true and also both are equivalent.

 

At various stages in Jiva is Siva (levels 1-6 in KS) it is possible to realize at a certain level and "assume" the form (or copy) at that level of the universe (or reality).

 

Best wishes,

Jeff

Edited September 1, 2014 by Jeff

[GrandmasterP]

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.

Gassho.

I am indeed a deeply facile TaoBum.

That said I was serious in posting that...

 

There are Buddhas and Buddhas out there..

For example, Amitabha Buddha.

 

Edited September 1, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[3bob]

Hi Bob,

 

I may have been somewhat unclear in my meaning in the above statement, as I said "first stage" relative to enlightenment.

 

Jiva is Siva would more equate to what I would call the second stage in a classic Buddhist framework. This is after one has realized the soul, and is now integrating into all "reality/Siva" and in Buddhism utilizes what is called "completion stage" (tantric-energy) practices. This is the second half of the Heart sutra, void creates and is equal to all form. Realizing ultimate emptiness is knowing both are true and also both are equivalent.

 

At various stages in Jiva is Siva (levels 1-6 in KS) it is possible to realize at a certain level and "assume" the form (or copy) at that level of the universe (or reality).

 

Best wishes,

Jeff

 

I may get your drift...? then again there are the stories about various Zen students reading or hearing certain koans or suttas and then having sudden master level realization beyond what it sounds like you are calling lower level or first stage.

 

Has someone taught you these attempts at mixing Hinduism and Buddhism? It's not something I would try, as in making major correlations as if certain teachings were the same or very similar! Thus I think it better to understand Buddhism from a Buddhist perspective and Hinduism from a Hindu perspective even though they have some common ground in certain areas.

Om

[Jeff]

 

I may get your drift...? then again there are the stories about various Zen students reading or hearing certain koans or suttas and then having sudden master level realization beyond what it sounds like you are calling lower level or first stage.

 

Has someone taught you these attempts at mixing Hinduism and Buddhism? It's not something I would try, as in making major correlations as if certain teachings were the same or very similar! Thus I think it better to understand Buddhism from a Buddhist perspective and Hinduism from a Hindu perspective even though they have some common ground in certain areas.

Om

No on the mixing, the comments (and cross pollination) are my own.

 

But, given the inherent nature of your OP question regarding the "soul" in Buddhism, I thought it would be helpful.

 

Best wishes,

Jeff

[3bob]

No on the mixing, the comments (and cross pollination) are my own.

 

But, given the inherent nature of your OP question regarding the "soul" in Buddhism, I thought it would be helpful.

 

Best wishes,

Jeff

 

Fair enough, and my op question was a type of mixture (so to say) but based on an apparent (or perhaps even actual?) mixture coming from a Buddhist sutta.

[steve]

ok, it is my problem but it's also your problem if you mean one thing and it sounds like you are saying the opposite by almost any standard of measure for the meanings of the words and sentences that you used. (?) I love those koans but your words were not really in koan form if that is what you mean?

When trying to communicate about these experiences I think it's more about whether the words (symbols) connect us to common experience or not.

I wasn't really going for koan, rather for a flexible perspective perhaps.

[3bob]

Steve,

To me your previous prose alludes to Self-realization, but to you probably to no-self since you are declaring Buddhism to be what you follow - thus we have two very different takes on the same lines which is not that common of a thing to happen between two countering schools...

Edited September 2, 2014 by 3bob

[steve]

Steve,

To me your previous prose alludes to Self-realization, but to you probably to no-self you since you are declaring Buddhism to be what you follow - thus we have two very different takes on the same lines which is not that common of thing to happen between two countering schools...

 

In all the thousands of years that spiritual scholars have been debating, defining, and discussing, words and concepts have yet to manifest or capture truth. Nor have the great masters been able to agree on the most expedient and comprehensive approach to take.

 

That's unlikely to change today anytime soon.

 

Fortunately, the one thing they do agree upon is that everything we need is already right here, inside of us, just waiting to be revealed and integrated into our daily lives. Free for the taking. But words and concepts will only take us so far. The intellect needs to recognize its limitations or we'll just go round and round...