Soul theories and the Dhamma

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
SamKR
Posts: 998
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by SamKR » Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:25 am

cappuccino wrote:self, would be conforming with eternalism
There is a version of "Self" which is not eternalism.
cappuccino wrote:no self, would be conforming with annihilationism
There is a version of "No self" which is not annihilationism.
cappuccino wrote:all phenomena are not-self
True. But in my opinion practice based on "no self" (without wrong view of annihilationism) is a good approach (because then it is the same as "not-self" approach).

:namaste:
Last edited by SamKR on Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1655
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by cappuccino » Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:29 am

Last edited by cappuccino on Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

SamKR
Posts: 998
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by SamKR » Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:40 am

cappuccino wrote:Alternatives to the Ananda sutta?
Not alternative to Ananda sutta. But an alternative meaning of the word "self" used in "Ananda sutta". The whole confusion regarding "self" and "no self" arises because of spectrum of meaning of this single word. In the context of Ananda sutta "self" has its specific meaning.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1655
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by cappuccino » Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:48 am

self
noun
1.
a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action.

synonyms: ego, I, oneself, persona, person, identity

SamKR
Posts: 998
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by SamKR » Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:10 am

Unfortunately, that is just one meaning out of many. There are many meanings and definitions; for example Upanishads have their own definitions of "Self" which are usually completely different from the above meaning.

chownah
Posts: 7596
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by chownah » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:08 am

Twilight wrote:Yes, because anihilationist believe that there is a self that gets destroyed. While Buddha says there never was a self to begin with. And that is why there is another passage just after the one that you have quoted in the same sutta to further clarify things to make sure nobody misinterprets the sutta:
"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"
:goodpost:
This is a good statement of what I think anihilatinism is all about. Just like twilight says, "there never was a self to begin with"....you can't anihilate something which does not exist and that is why anihilatinism is a wrong view.

chownah

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1655
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by cappuccino » Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:19 pm

annihilationism is the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness

User avatar
Twilight
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:43 pm

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by Twilight » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:26 pm

cappuccino wrote:annihilationism is the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness
:goodpost:
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link

chownah
Posts: 7596
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by chownah » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:05 am

cappuccino wrote:annihilationism is the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness
This is only one of many applicatoins of annihilationism. It can be applied to anything where one sees a self with consciousness being just one of many.
chownah

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1655
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by cappuccino » Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:53 pm

The Blessed One would never say that on the dissolution of the body the saint who has lost all depravity is annihilated,
perishes, and does not exist after death.

Yamaka Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

whynotme
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by whynotme » Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:44 am

If there is no self, the answer is easy. It is just you dont be there.

Where is no self?

There are many people feeling hungry in Africa. So is there any kind of self, or yourself in those?

I think most of us will say, there isnt any soul/my self there. That is the true 'no self' story.

If it is really 'no self', you don't care and can not do anything about it, because it is just 'no self'. You don't care about the pain, the feeling, the death, it doesn't matter, because it is just really no yourself, don't have yourself. That is where it is no yourself.

If is is really, there is no yourself in a place, then you don't need to do anything, and can not do anything.

On the other hand, if you think there is no yourself, just the illusion of self. Then whatever you call it, the stream of feeling will still be in front of you from time to time, the pain, the pleasure, the suffering, it just runs there, and even if there is yourself or not, does the stream disappear? Does the feeling disappear?

Let say an animal, a dog, it doesnt acknowledge about the self, or itself, it still feels hungry, and that feeling is all mater to it. So what? Is there a self or not?

If there is really no self, then why cant you act like it is really 'no self', aka the story of a stranger in Africa? And what is the different between the two kinds of 'no self'? The 'no self' in a stranger, and the 'no self' in yourself?

Why do you need to try to get 'no self', if it is really no self? Do you need to get 'no self' state in a stranger in Africa? Of course, not, it is just no yourself there. Then why do you need to achieve that state of 'no self' here? If you need to get that, it is just fake.

It doesnt matter what you think. Until there is consciousness, there is feeling. And that is the self, whatever you call or name it.

Of course you can not find anything persistent in that stream of consciousness and feeling, or outside of it. But the ability to feel that stream from the infinity of the past, that ability does not change. All things gone, and new things come, but you are still here.

Mahayana tries to connect that to the consciousness, but even consciousness gone. Just the ability to feel it again, and again, and again... it is always here.
Please stop following me

rightviewftw
Posts: 2219
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by rightviewftw » Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:34 am

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... html#fn-20
Grounds for Views

15. "There are, monks, these six grounds for false views.[15] What are the six? There is here, monks, an uninstructed worldling who has no regard for Noble Ones, who is ignorant of their teaching and untrained in it; who has no regard for men of worth, who is ignorant of their teaching and untrained in it: he considers corporeality thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self';[16] he considers feeling... perception... mental formations thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and what is seen, heard, sensed, and thought;[17] what is encountered, sought, pursued in mind,[18] this also he considers thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and also this ground for views (holding): 'The universe is the Self.[19] That I shall be after death;[20] permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same,[21] shall I abide in that very condition' — that (view), too, he considers thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self.'[22]

16. "But, monks, there is here a well-instructed noble disciple who has regard for Noble Ones, who knows their teaching and is well trained in it; who has regard for men of worth, who knows their teaching and is well trained in it: he does not consider corporeality in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; he does not consider feeling... perception... mental formations in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and what is seen, heard, sensed, and thought; what is encountered, sought, pursued in mind, this also he does not consider in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and also this ground for views (holding): 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable, eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition' — that (view), too, he does not consider thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self.'

17. "Considering thus, he is not anxious about unrealities."[23]

Anxiety about Unrealities
18. When this was said, a certain monk asked the Blessed One:

"Lord, can there be anxiety about unrealities, in the external?"[24]

"There can be, O monk," said the Blessed One. "In that case, monk, someone thinks: 'Oh, I had it! That, alas, I have no longer! Oh, may I have it again! But alas, I do not get it!' Hence he grieves, is depressed and laments; beating his breast, he weeps and dejection befalls him. Thus, monk, is there anxiety about unrealities, in the external."

19. "But, Lord, can there be absence of anxiety about unrealities, in the external?"

"There can be, O monk," said the Blessed One. "In that case, monk, someone does not think thus: 'Oh, I had it! That, alas, I have no longer! Oh, may I have it again! But, alas, I do not get it!' Hence he does not grieve, is not depressed, does not lament; he does not beat his breast nor does he weep, and no dejection befalls him. Thus, monk, is there absence of anxiety about unrealities, in the external."

20. "Lord, can there be anxiety about unrealities, in the internal?"

"There can be, monk," said the Blessed One. "In that case, monk, someone has this view: 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition.' He then hears a Perfect One expounding the Teaching for the removal of all grounds for views, of all prejudices, obsessions, dogmas and biases; for the stilling of all (kamma-) processes, for the relinquishment of all substrata (of existence), for the extirpation of craving, for dispassion, cessation, Nibbaana. He then thinks: 'I shall be annihilated, I shall be destroyed! No longer shall I exist!' Hence he grieves, is depressed and laments; beating his breast, he weeps, and dejection befalls him. Thus, monk, is there anxiety about unrealities, in the internal."

21. "But, Lord, can there be absence of anxiety about unrealities, in the internal?"

"There can be, monk," said the Blessed One. "In that case, monk, someone does not have this view: 'The universe is the Self... eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition.' He then hears a Perfect One expounding the Teaching for the removal of all grounds for views, of all prejudices, obsessions, dogmas and biases; for the stilling of all (kamma-) processes, for the relinquishing of all substrata (of existence), for the extirpation of craving, for dispassion, cessation, Nibbaana. He then does not think: 'I shall be annihilated, I shall be destroyed! No longer shall I exist!' Hence he does not grieve, is not depressed, does not lament; he does not beat his breast nor does he weep, and no dejection befalls him. Thus, monk, is there absence of anxiety about unrealities, in the internal.[25]
...
Misrepresentation
37. "So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A nihilist[38] is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'[39]

"As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'

"What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering.
here are the footnotes;
15.
Grounds for false views (ditthi-tthaana). Comy: By the words "There are, monks, these six grounds for false views," the Master wishes to show this: "He who takes the five aggregates of existence as 'I' and 'Mine', by way of a threefold wrong grasp (tividha-gaaha), he flings mud and refuse into my dispensation, like this Arittha."

Comy and Sub-Comy: False views themselves are "grounds" (or bases, starting-points) for subsequently arising false views, like personality belief, eternalism, etc. (Comy: ditthiipi ditthi-tthaana.m). Further, the "grounds" are the subject-matter (aarammana, "object") of the views, i.e., the five aggregates, the visual objects, etc. Finally, they are also the conditioning factors (paccaya) of the false views, e.g., ignorance, sense-impression (phassa), (faulty) perceptions and thoughts, unwisely directed attention (ayoniso manasikaara), bad company, others' speech, etc. [These, with the aggregates as the first, are the eight "grounds for false views," as mentioned in the Patisambhidaa Magga (Ditthi-kathaa). The term ditthi-tthaana also occurs in the Brahmajaala Sutta (DN 1) and in the commentary to it.

16.
"He considers corporeality thus: 'This is mine'." Comy: This is wrong grasp (or wrong approach) induced by craving (tanhaa-gaaha). "This I am": this is wrong grasp induced by conceit (maana-gaaha). "This is my self": this is wrong grasp induced by false views (ditthi-gaaha). Here, reference is to craving, conceit, and false views which have corporeality as object; but corporeality cannot be said to be a self. The same holds true for feeling, perception and mental formations.
17.
"What is seen": (Comy) the visual sense-object base (ruupaayatana); "heard": the sound-base; "sensed" (muta.m): the sense-object bases of smell, taste, and touch-sensations; "what is thought": the remaining seven bases, i.e., the mind-object base (dhammaayatana) and the six sense-organ bases.
18.
"Encountered": (Comy) after having been sought for, or not sought for; "sought": encountered or not encountered (before); "mentally pursued" (anuvicarita.m manasaa): resorted to by consciousness (cittena anusañcarita.m) — what was encountered or not encountered without being sought for.

The terms "thought," "encountered," etc., refer to the fifth aggregate, i.e., consciousness (viññaanakkhandha), which was not mentioned in the first part of §15.

19.
"The universe is the Self," lit.: "This (is) the world, this (is) the self" (so loko so attaa). That, in fact, an identification of the two terms is intended here, will be shown in the following comments. The best explanation of the passage is furnished in the Brahmajaala Sutta (DN 1) where a similar phraseology is used: "There are, monks, some ascetics and brahmans who are eternalists and who proclaim self and world to be eternal" (sassatavaadaa sassata.m attañca lokañca paññapenti); subsequently the theorist is introduced as stating his view in similar terms: "Eternal are self and world... they exist as eternally the same" (sassato attaa ca loko ca... atthi iveva sassatisama.m). The last term appears likewise in our text; see Note 21. From this we may safely conclude that it is the identity, or unity, of the Self (or soul; mahaatman, paramaatman) with the universe (or the Universal Spirit, Brahman) which is conveyed by our text.

In the Commentary specific to our text, this eternalistic view is rendered and classified in the terminology of the Dhamma. The Commentary says:

"This statement ('The universe is the Self') refers to the (wrong) view 'He considers corporeality, etc., as the self (ruupa.m attato samanupassatii' ti aadinaa nayena).'"

The canonical quotation (e.g., in MN 44), included here in the Commentary, has two implications which are of importance for understanding the reason why it was cited in this context:

(1) As very often in the commentaries (e.g., to Satipatthaana Sutta), the term "world" (loko) is explained as truly referring to the five aggregates (khanda, i.e., corporeality, feeling, etc.), singly or in toto.

(2) This quotation is the formula for the first of the twenty types of personality-belief (sakkaaya-ditthi; e.g., in MN 44). In the first five of these twenty, the self is said to be identical with each of the five aggregates (as in the earlier part of §15 of our text). Hence the application of this quote to our textual passage signifies that the theorist conceives the "world" (i.e., corporeality, feeling, etc.) as identical with the self.

The double "So (loko) so (attaa)" in our text, should therefore, be taken as standing for "yo (loko) so (attaa)," lit.: what is the world that is the self. In the Comy to MN 44 we find a similar phrase: "Someone considers corporeality as self: what is corporeality that is 'I'; what is 'I' that is corporeality. Thus he considers corporeality and self as non-dual' (... ya.m ruupa.m so aha.m, yo aha.m ta.m ruupan' ti ruupañca advaya.m samanupassati)." According to this interpretation the phrase has been translated here by "This universe is the Self."

Mostly, the first five types of personality-belief are explained as referring to the wrong view of annihilationism (uccheda-ditthi). [See, e.g., Patisambhidaa-Magga, Ditthikathaa, Ucchedaditthi-niddesa; further Comy to MN 44.]

But their being quoted in our context, shows that they may also apply to eternalism (sassata-ditthi). We have come to this conclusion since it is improbable that, in our textual passage two mutually exclusive views should have been combined in a single statement formulating the sixth "ground for false views"; that is, in the first part of that statement, annihilationism, and in the second, eternalism.

20.
"That I shall be after death..." (so pecca bhavissaami). Comy explains by "so aha.m," a Paali idiom, meaning literally "this I." Pecca: lit. having gone, i.e., to the other world.
21.
"Eternally the same" (sassati-sama.m): an Upanishadic term; see Brhadaranyaka-Upanisad, 5, 10: saasvatiih samaah.

This entire statement of the sixth 'ground for views' may well have been the original creed of an eternalistic doctrine. The phrasing appears rather vague in the first part, and in general it is rather loosely worded (so for so aham). To contemporaries, however, the meaning may have been quite clear since it was perhaps the stock formula for teachings that were well known. Hence, in this translation, we have left the first part of the statement in its rather cryptic and ambiguous original form, while giving the interpretations in the notes only.

22.
He identifies himself entirely (Sub-Comy: attaana.m viya ganhaati) with that eternalistic misconception (gaaha), induced by craving (for self-perpetuation), by false views (tenaciously maintained) and by conceit (deeply ingrained ego-centricity). Here one view serves as subject-matter for another view (Comy, Sub-Comy).
23.
"He is not anxious about unrealities" (asati na paritassati); or "about the non-existing" ("I" and "Mine"). The verb paritassati has, according to Comy the twofold connotation of fear (bhaya) and craving (tanhaa). Hence this passage may also be rendered: "he has no fears nor cravings concerning the non-existent." Comy and Sub-Comy to the Brahmaajala Sutta have a long disquisition about the corresponding noun paritassana, occurring also in MN 138, SN 22.7, SN 22.8, SN 22.53, and SN 22.55.

Comy: "By showing herewith the taint-free saint who has no anxiety at the destruction of his own (lit.: internal) aggregates, the Blessed One concludes his exposition.

24.
"In the external" (bahiddhaa): concerning external property which includes also animate possessions, like wife and child, friends, etc.
25.
This section deals, according to Comy, with a "four-fold voidness" (catukotikaa suññataa), i.e., absence of self and mine, referring to one who, at the destruction of his own aggregates (i.e., his personality), (1) feels anguish, (2) feels none; and to one who, at the destruction of external property (3) feels anguish, (4) feels none. For another classification of the "four-fold voidness," see Visuddhi Magga (translated by Ñanamoli), p. 762 f; and SN 22.5, where likewise reference to "anxiety" or "anguish" (taaso) is made.
....
38.
"A nihilist" (venayiko). Comy: satta-vinaasako, "destroyer of a being's (personality)"; a denier of individuality.
39.
"The annihilation of an existing creature" (sato sattassa ucchedam). Sub-Comy: "One who speaks of doing away with a being that has existence in the ultimate sense (paramatthato), would actually be one who teaches the destruction of a being. But I am speaking of what does not exist in the ultimate sense. I am using that (term 'being') only in the conventional sense as done in common parlance (yathaa loke voharati)."
Consider the above Sutta in light of this;
"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

"No, lord."
and the Sabba Sutta;
"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
I think these Sutta properly understood are all one needs to disprove any kind of eternal soul of a being delusion.

Some people on this forum, have expressed the view that Vinnana Anidassana being outside of All;
MN 49
"'Consciousness without surface,
endless, radiant all around,
has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the allness of the all.
is a soul of a being but that would make one Vinnana Anidassana different from the Vinnana Anidassana of another, so suddenly we get Multiplicity of Nibbanas as in;
Nibbana Sutta;https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
... that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished,[1] unevolving, without support [mental object].[2] This, just this, is the end of stress.
belonging to such and such dead attainer of Parinibbana. A view refuted by the first Sutta and also the meaning inferred from Sutta pitaka in general, in particular the qualities of X[that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind;...] which are;
  • dhuvam - stable or constant
  • appavatta - non-continuing, non-persisting
  • akālika - timeless / beyond time /not-time
  • “name-and-form” are wholly destroyed.
Which in themselves remove any possibility for it being something that has a duration or persisting for all of eternity.

Furthermore;

If souls of beings went to or realized Nibbana [that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind;...] that would also make Nibbana one thing and the Soul another.

Which is refuted because Vinnana Anidassana is the only single concept outside of All. All is the World
Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and conceive the world is called the world in the training of the noble one.
and nothing of the world can go outside of All. Therefore no soul can go to Nibbana and Nibbana does not belong to anybody in the World because it is not of the World and does not belong to the World or anybody in It.
How to meditate: Anapanasati, Satipatthana.
Intro to General Semantics
Factors & Perceptions

Parallel Dhammapada Reading
Chinese to Eng Dhp
"The statements; 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media is it the case that there is anything else?' '.. is it the case that there is not anything else .. is it the case that there both is & is not anything else .. is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectify non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes."

whynotme
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by whynotme » Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:13 am

I think we Buddhist can all be agree on this:

The Buddhist theory can be seen as,
1/ each person is an individual stream
2/ from the infinite past.

If each person is not an individual stream, then another person can train/ work for other person to get liberation. If each person is not an individual stream then another person can feel, decide, act... based on other person. But Buddhism says that, who do get the result, no one can work for the other. And from our own experience in this life, our perception/consciousenes stream is guarded from each other, no one can feel/ act rather than each of our own.

The second point is almost universal in all kind of Buddhism. These are two Buddhist facts.

So most people only see tree, but can not see the forest. When they see in the individual stream, of course they can not find anything persistent, so they can not find the soul/ self. But that is just an individual tree, they can not see the forest.

--------------------

Here is just straight fact, you dont need faith or superpower to get it.

Assume that this material universe, somehow, in some condition, can make consciousness happens, e.g when you have 4 carbon atom, 16 hydrogen, put them together in and star shape, and with a little energy, you can make consciousness. So, assume the universe is the only living thing, for several billions years, carbon can not meet hydrogen, and there is no consciousness in the universe. The universe is sleep or dead.

Then, after sometime, billions of year, carbons and hydrogen kinetic energy is low enough to attach to each other to form organic material, and that is how consciousness appears. The universe is alive, reborn again. That is the kind of fairy story the scientists believe.

Assume, time is infinite in both direction, if there is only one sentient being in the whole universe, e.g. the universe itself, then that being can not be liberated from existence. Because that in the future, the universe will somehow composite consciousness from material again, and that being will be reborn, or awake again. That single being, the universe, he will feel again, he can see again each time consciousness is composited. Let say that being somehow get to nivarna, e.g. he will never feel or see anything again, then, when the consciousness is composited, what is it? The universe just awake again. No way to escape this.

So, if time is infinite in both directions, to get to the liberation, a sentient being must be guarded from the future consicousness arise in the universe. This is the condition of the liberation, because he will not feel anything again. If the universe will always create consciousnesss in the future, then how can he can not feel that consciousness?

So the most important hidden characteristic of the Buddhism, is that each individual stream of consciousness must be guarded from each other. Without this, e.g. if the counsiousness of everyone can be intervened from the other, then there is no cessation, no liberation.

The fact we know is that, no one can intervene other's stream of consciousness, no one can live for the other.

---------------------

But no one can define this property. Most people only see the tree, the things in an individual stream. They can not see the forest, as everyone is an individual stream from the infinite past. That the universe is the forest of individual streams.

If other can intervene the conscious of other, then we can make the conscious of the Buddha continue to exist, just because we continue to exist. From the thereotical point of view, the stream of the Buddha's conscious is from infinite past, run to the point when he get Nirvana, and cease there. It is guarded from any future consciousness arise in the universe. If it is not guarded, then all the work he did to get to the nirvana is worthless.

This guarded property make the subject of each individual permanent. From the infinite past to infinite future, no matter how many lives, many change, each one is on his own stream, live in his own subjective universe of feeling and conscious. No intervene from the others can happens. No scientist can explain this property even just for the current life.

This guarded stream is even permanent after entering nirvana, because, as said earlier, if the stream is not guarded, then it will be arise easily in the future whenever conscious is arise in the universe. But if we believe the Buddha is liberated, e.g. not feeling conscious never again, then his stream is guarded.

Because this property is permanent, it is the soul/ self of each individual. Stop looking at individual tree, and you can see the forest of the souls. Because when you look inside and individual tree, you can only seee things that rise and fall in that, and you can not see that tree. So you say there isnt any thing permanent in that stream. It is true, but just half of the truth. Only when compare to other treee, you can see the permanent property of each individual.

But you can not say the soul exist after nivarna, because when conscious ceases to exist, we can not see anything. When we can not see/ feel anything, how can we say a being exist? So that why all the says about the self is wrong: The Buddha exists after death is wrong, because there is nothing visible left. The Buddha doesn't exist after death is wrong, because the soul is still exist, e.g. guarded from other streams. The Buddha both exists and doesn't exist is wrong, because that is just wrong.

So, the nirvana is just the ending of the visible thing in the stream, it is not the ending of the stream, i.e. the soul/ self.
Please stop following me

rightviewftw
Posts: 2219
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by rightviewftw » Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:28 am

whynotme wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:13 am
The Buddha exists after death is wrong, because there is nothing visible left. The Buddha doesn't exist after death is wrong, because the soul is still exist, e.g. guarded from other streams. The Buddha both exists and doesn't exist is wrong, because that is just wrong.
This is not the reason for why one should not say that The Buddha doesn't exist after death. The reason is that existence of the Buddha cannot be established as a ultimate reality
"The annihilation of an existing creature" (sato sattassa ucchedam). Sub-Comy: "One who speaks of doing away with a being that has existence in the ultimate sense (paramatthato), would actually be one who teaches the destruction of a being. But I am speaking of what does not exist in the ultimate sense. I am using that (term 'being') only in the conventional sense as done in common parlance (yathaa loke voharati)."
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

"No, lord."
Anyway this will probably be my last contribution to this thread
How to meditate: Anapanasati, Satipatthana.
Intro to General Semantics
Factors & Perceptions

Parallel Dhammapada Reading
Chinese to Eng Dhp
"The statements; 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media is it the case that there is anything else?' '.. is it the case that there is not anything else .. is it the case that there both is & is not anything else .. is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectify non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes."

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2267
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by Zom » Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:51 am

So, the nirvana is just the ending of the visible thing in the stream, it is not the ending of the stream, i.e. the soul/ self.
"Stream" is not soul or self. And no again, "stream" ends when final nibbana happens.

As for these 4 statements about "Tathagata" - they are not wrong, but invalid, because they suggest something which is not there from the very start, that is, "[Self of] Tathagata". This is explained in Isidatta sutta from SN 41 - only those people who have self-views, keep positing (or speculating about) these 4 statements (or one of them).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 64 guests