Soul in Buddhism

[old3bob]

 

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

 

which reminds me, while some of us are beating our brains out against the wall, someone said, "I got a name..."

 

 

and the kids sing....(Zen)

 

Edited March 24 by old3bob

[Tommy]

5 hours ago, doc benway said:

This is the difference between mindfulness and dzogchen.

In mindfulness, we remain identified with the watcher and perfect the art of staying present and attentive.

In dzogchen, we turn the attention directly on the watcher and see what exactly that is. 

I don’t mean it should be an analytical process, per se, but that is what is called “turning the light around."

 

When the looker looks back at itself directly, without thinking about it or analyzing it intellectually, both the looker and what is being looked at dissolve, if only for an instant.

In that dissolution, there is the meaning of emptiness of self. 

It is not intellectual or conceptual, it is open and empty and that’s where we abide. 

Looking back at the observer is just one way to connect to the spaciousness and clarity of the present moment.

There are others. 

 

I suspect this is why Buddha may have refused to answer the question about self, his non-verbal instruction being that it is more important to do the work than be given an answer.

Thanks you for your encouragement. 

[stirling]

8 hours ago, doc benway said:

Perhaps stirling will have some other comments but I’d like to offer mine.

 

It is worth listening to our brilliant friend Doc, here. I might have said some of it, but greatly enjoyed reading all of it.

 

16 hours ago, Tommy said:

When I started, there was this constant thinking of what I was doing. After some practice, there were moments of quiet. However, there was still this point of view. Of a person watching, here I am . Sometimes not focused on the object or the crutch I was using to focus my mind (breath). Later, the thought process seems to be what the mind was at that moment. I never understood the words about the river. That one can not step into the river in the same spot twice. But, turns out the mind is like the river. And one is never the same as stuff changes all the time. So, the river changes and is not the same from moment to moment as the mind is not the same. Guess maybe I really don't understand. Or maybe just doing it wrong?? But, thanks for your kind words.

 

Actually, I think you have made some progress, from an intellectual standpoint. If there is a "self" what IS it. Does it always have the same thoughts... do the senses always see from the same perspective? Do you meet the same "I" every time you sit on the cushion? Are you the same person when you are at work, or with your partner, or with old friends, or are these selves different? Is there really ONE "self" that you can point to?

 

Where there is just stillness of the mind in your sitting, is there a "self" watching, or separate objects in your view? With your eyes open and without thought filling your mind with conceptual objects, is there anything that has existence of its own as separate, or just a panorama of color, shape, and light in your view? Look carefully when the mind is still.

 

The very basis of everything is present when the mind is still. It is a ripe opportunity for seeing things as they truly are.

 

-

 

Don't expect to get this because we are pointing at it, or from reading this on a board, though it COULD happen. It is hard, in my experience, to impart these ideas without at least some face to face Zoom work. Still... just looking at this again and again could crack it. Feel free to message me if you are truly curious about this. 

[Tommy]

10 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

It is worth listening to our brilliant friend Doc, here. I might have said some of it, but greatly enjoyed reading all of it.

 

 

Actually, I think you have made some progress, from an intellectual standpoint. If there is a "self" what IS it. Does it always have the same thoughts... do the senses always see from the same perspective? Do you meet the same "I" every time you sit on the cushion? Are you the same person when you are at work, or with your partner, or with old friends, or are these selves different? Is there really ONE "self" that you can point to?

 

Where there is just stillness of the mind in your sitting, is there a "self" watching, or separate objects in your view? With your eyes open and without thought filling your mind with conceptual objects, is there anything that has existence of its own as separate, or just a panorama of color, shape, and light in your view? Look carefully when the mind is still.

 

The very basis of everything is present when the mind is still. It is a ripe opportunity for seeing things as they truly are.

 

-

 

Don't expect to get this because we are pointing at it, or from reading this on a board, though it COULD happen. It is hard, in my experience, to impart these ideas without at least some face to face Zoom work. Still... just looking at this again and again could crack it. Feel free to message me if you are truly curious about this. 

Thank you. Yes, I think I do understand it intellectually. And hope eventually thru practice. But, do not want to hi jack this thread which is similar to my recent thread about no soul and rebirth. The point of self observation to see the self or emptiness of self may become a real possibility which then explains how rebirth is possible with no self. But, no words can explain. Hmm, I just read what I wrote and it makes no sense. Anyway, thanks.

[johndoe2012]

For temporary suspension of the self generation, you could try the Dzogchen Semdzins in the Kindle sample of the book. 

 

Quote

Semdzins ‘hold’ the mind momentarily, during which time the window to the nature of mind is thrown open or enlarged and nonmeditation proceeds.

 

 

 

Edited March 25 by johndoe2012

[stirling]

13 hours ago, johndoe2012 said:

For temporary suspension of the self generation, you could try the Dzogchen Semdzins in the Kindle sample of the book. 

 

Believe it or not, even a sneeze, or a sudden surprise will do it as well.

[johndoe2012]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 

Believe it or not, even a sneeze, or a sudden surprise will do it as well.

 

Yesterday it happened when I went dancing 😊

[stirling]

44 minutes ago, johndoe2012 said:

Yesterday it happened when I went dancing 😊

 

People get all excited about the rarity or difficulty of reaching "cessation" (4th Noble Truth), but in fact it happens in short bursts all the time, and is completely familiar to most people once they realize what it is. 

 

...of course these cessations lack the complete realization of what they actually are, and the depth of emptiness it is possible to understand and appreciate.

[johndoe2012]

8 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

People get all excited about the rarity or difficulty of reaching "cessation" (4th Noble Truth), but in fact it happens in short bursts all the time, and is completely familiar to most people once they realize what it is. 

 

...of course these cessations lack the complete realization of what they actually are, and the depth of emptiness it is possible to understand and appreciate.

 

Yesterday when I recognized it, there was no judging or anything. Just non doing and joy. 

 

Even if people don't know what this is, it actually doesn't matter. They are all divine anyway. 

[Tommy]

It can be a scary experience for those not understanding what is happening. Not wanting this, it can make one think that they are losing their minds or grip on reality. So, important to have a good teacher.

[Tommy]

It can be a scary experience for those not understanding what is happening. Not wanting this, it can make one think that they are losing their minds or grip on reality. So, important to have a good teacher and sangha.

Edited March 27 by Tommy

[Lairg]

On 7/30/2024 at 2:48 PM, Chang dao ling said:

Hi, what did buddha teach about soul? I know buddha teach no self . Here I believe self means soul.

 

In the ancient Egyptian/Kabbalistic system the human has 5 souls.  Each soul body has an intelligence operating that part of the human:

 

- physical

- emotional

- mental

- heart

- spiritual will (atma).

 

Even that list is a bit tricky as often the human has those bodies split e.g. a personal mind and a transpersonal mind, a personal heart and a cosmic heart

 

Traditionally society allows 7 years to learn to control each soul body so by the age of 21 a human was supposed be an adult.

 

Jung maintained that by the age of 42 the human could be ready for a mission in life.  That assumed the human worked very fast and learned to control the first trans-human soul body (monad).

 

The intelligence of a particular soul may find the allocated soul body unsuitable or improperly connected and wait for the next incarnation.  Fortunately parallel processing occurs in Nature

 

 

Edited March 27 by Lairg

[Tommy]

I really believe that is it a very difficult thing for some to understand the concept of no self. People want to believe there is a soul or thing or energy that passes from one body to the next. I have heard of romanticized stories of when a person dies that they must drink the potion of forgetfulness before they can cross the bridge to the next life. Some are so desperate to remember that they would jump into the running waters below to try to remember their past life. To try to swim across or will lose themselves in the river of forever never to reach the other shore of life.

 

Maybe some will intellectually understand that this person with this mind and its thoughts are not the self. That it is just the illusion brought onto us thru our constant bombardment of the senses and the processing of that information. But, until one actually experiences this then one does not understand fully the meaning of no self. So, one wishes for a soul.

Edited Monday at 12:07 PM by Tommy

[Lairg]

2 hours ago, Tommy said:

very difficult thing for some to understand the concept of no self

 

No self means not being self-centered in actions and attitudes - as compared with the human being captured by its personality.

 

As the human refines it becomes transparent to Light and thereby discovers higher layers that are the Self that serves the Oneness

 

No self is experiential rather than factual

 

 

[old3bob]

only being attached to the idea/concept/thought of no self or Self is problematic....those are pointers not the meaning itself.

 

Why would the Buddha say, "May all beings be happy" if there are no beings, no selves to be happy?  Was the Buddha indulging in some sort of delusion?

Edited Monday at 11:57 AM by old3bob

[Keith108]

17 hours ago, Tommy said:

I really believe that is it a very difficult thing for some to understand the concept of no self. People want to believe there is a soul or thing or energy that passes from one body to the next. I have heard of romanticized stories of when a person dies that they must drink the potion of forgetfulness before they can cross the bridge to the next life. Some are so desperate to remember that they would jump into the running waters below to try to remember their past life. To try to swim across or will lose themselves in the river of forever never to reach the other shore of life.

 

Maybe some will intellectually understand that this person with this mind and its thoughts are not the self. That it is just the illusion brought onto us thru our constant bombardment of the senses and the processing of that information. But, until one actually experiences this then one does not understand fully the meaning of no self. So, one wishes for a soul.

Folks love their own story. Me too...

The first sentence in quote says it all. It can't be understood, only experienced. The Dharma helps give a framework to point us in the right direction. If you understand dependent origination, then not-self becomes self evident (pun intended!) One more step is necessary though. 

 

_/|\_

[stirling]

9 hours ago, old3bob said:

only being attached to the idea/concept/thought of no self or Self is problematic....those are pointers not the meaning itself.

 

Why would the Buddha say, "May all beings be happy" if there are no beings, no selves to be happy?  Was the Buddha indulging in some sort of delusion?

 

 

Quote

The best known interpretation is from the Mādhyamaka school of Mahāyāna Buddhism, whose founder was the 3rd-century Indian Buddhist monk and philosopher Nāgārjuna. For Nāgārjuna, the two truths are epistemological truths. The phenomenal world is accorded a provisional existence. The character of the phenomenal world is declared to be neither real nor unreal, but logically indeterminable. Ultimately, all phenomena are empty (śūnyatā) of an inherent self or essence due to the non-existence of the self (anātman), but temporarily exist depending on other phenomena (pratītya-samutpāda). (My underline)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine#:~:text=Essence-function in Korean Buddhism,-See also%3A Korean&text=The polarity of absolute and,realities%2C but interpenetrate each other.

[old3bob]

 

the main (personal) delusion is in thinking that one's mind/intellect/concepts, texts, etc. can somehow fully understand and circumscribe or be that which they are not, although at best point towards.  (which includes thinking that one's mind fully understands and is an expert on no-self)

 

good luck, don't believe me find out for yourself...

 

Edited Monday at 11:59 PM by old3bob