Soul in Buddhism

[old3bob]

26 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

The Buddha purposely had the "unanswerable questions".

 

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

 

These included cosmologies of all kinds. The reason for this is that, where there is realization, it is obvious that these questions are being posed from a logic and world view that has been seen to be a mirage - a delusion. Even Buddhism itself is eventually seen to be a constructed idea of reality, not non-dual reality itself. 

 

 

 

if dharma is delusion then we're in nihilistic like trouble...or such trouble is ready to take over anytime, anywhere with anyone.  I prefer to put unanswered questions on an agnostic like shelf where they don't have to immediately be black or white.   Btw,  some tricksters (obvious or not) can also be taken as teachers.

[old3bob]

26 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

The Buddha purposely had the "unanswerable questions".

 

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

 

These included cosmologies of all kinds. The reason for this is that, where there is realization, it is obvious that these questions are being posed from a logic and world view that has been seen to be a mirage - a delusion. Even Buddhism itself is eventually seen to be a constructed idea of reality, not non-dual reality itself. 

 

 

 

if dharma is delusion then we're in nihilistic like trouble...or such trouble is ready to take over anytime, anywhere with anyone.  I prefer to put unanswered questions on an agnostic like shelf where they don't have to immediately be black or white.   Btw,  some tricksters (obvious or not) can also be taken as teachers.

[Keith108]

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

if dharma is delusion then we're in nihilistic like trouble...or such trouble is ready to take over anytime, anywhere with anyone.  I prefer to put unanswered questions on an agnostic like shelf where they don't have to immediately be black or white.   Btw,  some tricksters (obvious or not) can also be taken as teachers.

 

Dharma is skillful means. Ultimately, there is no Dharma. See the Heart Sutra

 

Not a teacher though, so ymmv...

 

edit: Btw, I love the agnostic shelf...I have many ideas up on that thing.

Edited Tuesday at 06:13 PM by Keith108

[Cobie]

 

30 minutes ago, Keith108 said:

… the Heart Sutra …

Scholars , e.g. Jan Nattier, suggests the Heart Sūtra is a Chinese creation (not a translation from Sanskrit). Examining the "core section," scholars concluded it was composed in Chinese. Then "back-translated" into Sanskrit.
 

 

Edited Tuesday at 06:43 PM by Cobie

[Keith108]

Just now, Cobie said:

 

Scholars , e.g. Jan Nattier, suggests the Heart Sūtra is a Chinese creation, not a translation from Sanskrit. Examining the "core section," scholars concluded it was composed in Chinese. Then "back-translated" into Sanskrit.
 

 

Meh...that's like the endless DDJ translation debates. It doesn't change anything. I am a practitioner, not a scholar. But, thanks for the side-note.

[stirling]

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

if dharma is delusion then we're in nihilistic like trouble...or such trouble is ready to take over anytime, anywhere with anyone.  I prefer to put unanswered questions on an agnostic like shelf where they don't have to immediately be black or white.   Btw,  some tricksters (obvious or not) can also be taken as teachers.

 

I think you misunderstand. I am saying that the Gnowledge (dharma of all kinds) points to something that is essentially ineffable.

 

Quote

"That which cannot be apprehended by the mind, but by which, they say, the mind is apprehended—That alone know as Brahman..." (Kena Upanishad 1.5-8)

 

Quote

"The ignorant think that Brahman is known, but the wise know Him to be beyond knowledge." (Kena Upanishad 2.3)

 

Both emphasize that Brahman is the source of all awareness, not an object to be known.

 

This is true in ALL non-dual traditions, and ineffability is even mentioned in Judaism and Christianity. This isn't a bug, it is a feature. It is a pointer for those who genuinely seek to understand to look beyond concepts. True realization, even of the nature of "God", isn't conceptual knowledge. It isn't something you can just tell someone else, or everyone would be sharing it.

[stirling]

5 minutes ago, Cobie said:

Scholars , e.g. Jan Nattier, suggests the Heart Sūtra is a Chinese creation (not a translation from Sanskrit). Examining the "core section," scholars concluded it was composed in Chinese. Then "back-translated" into Sanskrit.

 

If you read the Heart Sutra from the perspective of realization it is as clean and clear as a mountain stream. I don't know of any non-dual expression that is more concise and to the point. Another in the same league (IMO) is the Tsin Tsin Ming by Tseng T'san, not written by the Buddha but rather a Ch'an patriarch much much later. Dharma is being penned by living beings every day, all over the world. 

 

It isn't important if the Buddha said it, or if the guy that runs the hardware store down the street said it. There have been countless enlightened beings since the Buddha, all Buddhas themselves. They walk the streets of your town, tip their hats, and frequent the aformentioned hardware store to see their dharma brother. Even their simple kindness and patience is dharma.

[old3bob]

41 minutes ago, Keith108 said:

 

Dharma is skillful means. Ultimately, there is no Dharma. See the Heart Sutra

 

Not a teacher though, so ymmv...

 

edit: Btw, I love the agnostic shelf...I have many ideas up on that thing.

 

I'd say as long as there is time and space and vast multitudes of various emanations repeating in endless cycles,  then there is also dharma and adharma going on.  I also like that saying along the lines of : "samsara properly understood is nirvana"

[stirling]

11 minutes ago, old3bob said:

I also like that saying along the lines of : "samsara properly understood is nirvana"

 

It's hard to parse, but "adharma" is ALSO dharma. 

[old3bob]

30 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

It's hard to parse, but "adharma" is ALSO dharma. 

 

in non-dualism ok but not in dualism...with some schools in complete denial of dualism which is not my cup of tea.

[stirling]

3 minutes ago, old3bob said:

in non-dualism ok but not in dualism...with some schools in complete denial of dualism which is not my cup of tea.

 

You can't separate non-duality from duality. The ONE gives birth to the other. They are not a duality. If all appearances are Buddha, or Bhagavan, all appearances are therefore teachers. 

 

If one is open to learning about their own attachment and aversion when they see what they think of as "adharma", to see where their own struggle is centered, they are being shaped by dharma. 

[old3bob]

57 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

You can't separate non-duality from duality. The ONE gives birth to the other. They are not a duality. If all appearances are Buddha, or Bhagavan, all appearances are therefore teachers. 

 

If one is open to learning about their own attachment and aversion when they see what they think of as "adharma", to see where their own struggle is centered, they are being shaped by dharma. 

 

not so for some schools...