Do you believe in a Hindu Self, Christian Soul or Buddhist no self?
 

Buddha must have been brought up with Hindu beliefs, but he turned Hindu wisdom on it's head and stated there was no self, only a false self. I Believe there is an Atman Self/Higher Self/Soul, and I've been thinking about this versus the Buddha's no self, and wondering how does a belief in a Higher Self or No self affect other people's approaches to spirituality. There must be quite a difference, considering the two beliefs are polar opposites, I'd love to hear how this particular aspect of belief has affected you.

They are both polar opposites and both exsists I feel and compliment each other if you allow them to flow..

django the Buddhas teaching on ' anatta ' is ' not-self rather than ' no-self '.

Thanks Sky, I'm not really into Buddhism, what does not self mean? They don't believe in a higher self do they? Am I right in thinking that Buddhists believe ego is a false self? There are some things I do like about Buddhism, but I felt it clashed with my notion of having a higher self.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a.../notself2.html

See if this link helps you :smile:
Yes ego is a false self, I think it's similar to the clouds obscuring the sun. Buddhist do not believe in a higher self..




QUOTE=django]Thanks Sky, I'm not really into Buddhism, what does not self mean? They don't believe in a higher self do they? Am I right in thinking that Buddhists believe ego is a false self? There are some things I do like about Buddhism, but I felt it clashed with my notion of having a higher self.[/quote]

Yes the link did help thanks sky :smile: I'm happy to think of it as not-self, and within Buddhist terms as not a question worth asking.

I am starting to see Buddha as a psychologist ahead of his time with a solution to a perceived problem, and to quite an extent I agree with his stated problem, but I don't agree with his solution, this is why I see this issue of Higher Self vs Not self as utterly important in terms of the solution, I feel it makes such a big difference.

In Buddhism you are encouraged to find your own path, Buddha himself said to use his teaching as a raft ( Raft Parable ). If you believe in a higher self then thats ok because that is your path :smile:

When you start studying the Buddhas teachings you do start to see him as a Psychologist.

If you are interested, Google ' Dalai Lama Mind and Life Institution' there are lots of Video discussions between Buddhist's/Dalai Lama and Scientist, very interesting.

The Hindu concept of the relationship between Atman & Brahman speaks to me and what I have discovered in my own life journey...

The closest for me is Visistadvaita (or "qualified non-dualistic") Vedanta which claims that individual atmans are distinct from Brahman but utterly dependent on Brahman as their inner-controller. According to this school, Brahman is both "non-dual" and "qualified" by souls and matter. Yet, while the atman maintains its own will, it is ultimately dependent upon Brahman for its creation and preservation.

Sky, do you agree with this from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atman

"Unlike Hindus, Buddhists do not believe that within human beings and other life forms there is a permanent, indestructible and absolute entity called a soul or atman. Therefore, Buddhists reject the Hindu doctrine of atman, claiming that such ideas are fabricated by humans in order to deny their impermanence. Buddha taught that the idea of an eternal self is a misleading belief that is ultimately harmful, producing negative notions of "me" and "mine" and thereby providing the psychological basis for desire, attachment, and hatred. In short, Buddha described the self as the root of all evil, and characterized the attachments it creates as detractors from one's attainment of nirvana. This denial of the self at so thorough a philosophical and ontological extent marks Buddhism as unique among the other world religions."

Yes I agree to some extent but would just like to point out the Buddha taught ' Not self ' rather than ' No self ' :smile:

The difference is at a very subtle level really. Even the idea of the eternal soul is a construct of thought to reinforce the ego or false self, which is the source of all problems.

The conditioned Hindu Brahmins couldn't quite grasp Buddha's teachings at his time and hence opposed Buddha for that matter.

A study of the works of Jiddu Krishnamurti helped me to understand clearly the teaching of Buddha in this matter.

The idea of the soul or atman itself can become a barrier to experiential understanding which is what really counts in spirituality.

None of the above from OP-

We are actually Spiritual Beings. You could say spirits but some people think that means mists of air or something.

We are spirits, but spirits are actual Spiritual Beings. We don't have some "inner self" or some "soul" that works like a battery or faculty. We are THAT. When you evolve, you as a spiritual being evolve. One affects the others and vice versa.

That is why religion has never quite confirmed anything. That is why they are all still bickering back and forth about this.

We are not humans with a soul. We are not humans who must learn that we have "No Self". We are not humans who need to learn that we have an "inner Self."
We are Spiritual Beings having a human experience to evolve and grow.

When you go up higher and higher through dimensions we are not flesh, the true essence of our being can be see. The vibration and energy is faster and made of light. But when our consciousness and mind decides to descend here, we take on a human clothing as part of ourselves; but our whole Self is much bigger that is why we have a subconscious mind accessed in sleep, a superconscious mind that sometimes manifests in our day to day activities (that feeling of nonattachment to our body and self) .

There IS such a thing as "we have a soul" but this opens up another can of worms. In order for Spiritual Beings to incarnate and have the capacity to be self-aware, we are first ensouled. It is basically the makeup of the Subconscious mind. It is a part of our psyche that records our activities and keeps a record of everything we were and how we journeyed throughout the universe.

What works best for me is to see my body and inner world as my self.
This is my personal truth.

Other beliefs really confuse me.

I was just asked this somewhere else in a similar manner so I am just going to copy this over.


Confusion arises because people make statements that thoughts, emotions and sensations are not us. They come and go but are not us. I know I have said that many times myself and in a way it is true but not really :)

The first stage most people are taught is the Witness/Mindfulness. That there is separation between us and our thoughts, that they are fleeting unless we cling to them just like you said.

In Dzogchen they use the term Rigpa and say that we are all those thoughts, sensations and emotions and call this movement.

It is all energy/light.

So first we get to the point of separation from our thoughts. It is like we can see them float on by, they no longer attach to us and we find freedom. With increased depth the thoughts become less and less and the silence grows from within. We feel the movement of the thoughts within the silence.

We know this because it is like the waves hitting the beach. We experience it like the waves coming in and then we are back to being lost in thoughts as the waves reside. Over time just like the tide the water gets deeper and deeper until we are that movement, until we are that silence.

Now outside of our thinking we also have this body. Within the body, when people start to work with energy practices/pranayama techniques they first will notice a little energy within them. Over time this energy increases in depth and people start to feel energy hitting upon obstructions and that is when it becomes ecstatic. With still more depth one will notice that there body is energy. That the body is no different than our thoughts which is energy/light.

So our thoughts, emotions, sensations and our body are all energy/light. Just like a cloud each has form but in truth it is empty. It's true nature just like light or as science has shown atoms to be is emptiness.

The belief in an Atman, a soul according to Buddhism is not possible because a soul is a "thing" that "exists". In Buddhism the true nature of all things is emptiness. Because of that there is no soul that is made up of things residing in some place.

So who or what are we then?

Often when people first experience the light they are blinded by it. It is bright and it is all they can see. With increased depth you start to notice that the light is made up of individual streams of light. In Buddhism these are called Mind Streams.

A post was made in this section asking if all Buddhas are the same. I think this will help explain some things.

Do Buddha now all have different individual personalities? I was always taught that there is no difference between Buddha's and the only reason they have individual names is because we gave them different names to distinguish one Buddha manifestation from another, but to view them as different "Buddha's" is to create a duality in Enlightenment.


There are no differences between one Buddha and another in terms of realization; there are differences in terms of aspirations, and so on., which give rise to differences in sentient beings karmic connections with this buddhafield and that, and so on. In short, everyone who becomes a Buddha starts out as a sentient being, and there is a unique rosary of clarity that continues from the time of being a sentient being through the attainment of Vajradhara which forms the relative basis for Buddhahood.



Loppon Malcom

So we are each these mind streams that are made up of light that's true nature is emptiness. Each mind stream has unique karmic connections that the light hits upon that gives us our individuality. There is no "thing" in some place which is what anatta is referring to.

I hope this helps,

Tom

In my humble opinion these are words, labels, that limit the limitless. The drop is in the ocean and the ocean is also in the drop. Religions try to codify that which transcends thoughts and words.

Namaste.

This is going to be very difficult for me to express or write about.

These beliefs have both affected me and shaken me deeply. For years I was like a dog chasing it's tail trying to understand the difference between 'self' and 'no-self' or even a 'false self' if that's what 'self' really was.

It was like a 'chicken and egg' thing. How does one say "I am that?" when there's still an "I" and still a "that?"

How can people comprehend what is 'not self' through the 'self'? assuming of course the 'self' exists?

Of course I understood the nature of Brahman, The Void, Maya and all that, but where did that leave anything else in relation to it, assuming there was any relationship to start with.

The whole problem being of course that I believed in God or a Deity who was somehow anything and everything, so how could I say 'neti neti' (not that) to God?

It felt like I was always taking one step forward and two steps backward.

It wasn't until I fully surrendered my heart to God, I realised I was 'self' and 'no self' simultaneously whenever I was in that state of divine communion.

Of course I can still say that God alone exists, but I still need who "I am" as a person to relate to other humans in the way I am relating to you now.

All these beliefs totally screwed with my mind and undermined any beliefs I had in myself, my own self-esteem, my unlimited potential and my love for God - no matter how 'egotistical' those may be.

As soon as I turned away from my impersonal philosophy and embraced Siva with all my heart and soul, I understood all of it...He made me understand all of it...all of it...

...and all I know is that I should have done this much sooner than I did.

Thank you.

Aum Namah Shivaya

The anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?


This might help :smile:

Yeah, I know all of that now, but I had to drop even the doctrine of annata before I fully and experientially realised it.

I came to realise I was 'all in my head' and until I let go of all that and went down into my heart, was I able to finally break free of all that suffering and untie that last knot that was holding me back from all this. Thank you for your kind thoughts.

Yes reading about something and feeling it inside is very different.

Even understanding something and feeling it inside is very different.

That is not what anatta means. It is what split the Buddha from Hinduism.

Sunyata, no thing, no soul, no atman.

Of course this is correct according to the Buddha.
Anatta - Pali = Non Self.
Sunyata - Sanskrit, Sunnata - Pali = Emptiness/Voidness.
Hope this helps Jonesboy :smile:


Atman in Buddhism also means ' Ego '.

Thank you very much Sky.. I understand those terms it was your interpretation that was in question.

Here let me help. First let me provide a link for everyone as to where you go this:


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a.../notself2.html

That is from No-self or Not-self? by Thanissaro Bhikkhu and is the very last paragraph if anyone is interested.



It is the understanding that sunyata/emptiness is the true nature of everything. A soul or Atman which the thread is about refers to some thing that is made up of stuff that resides somewhere.

As far as ego and annata .. here maybe this will help.

Thus the Buddha teaches that, in the ultimate sense, amongst all these psychophysical phenomena of existence there cannot be found any eternal or even temporary ego-entity, and hence that all existence of whatever kind is something impersonal, or anattaa.

In this connection I would like to emphasize the fact that this fundamental doctrine of egolessness and emptiness is not, as some misinformed Western Buddhists assert, only taught in the southern school of Buddhism, but that even in the so-called the Mahayana schools it forms a most essential part.

...Thus whenever in the Buddhist scriptures mention is made of I, self, living being, etc., even of the Buddha, these expressions accordingly are used merely as conventional terms, without referring to any real entities. Therefore the Buddha has said: "It is impossible, it cannot be that a man with real understanding should ever consider anything as a real entity."

He who has not penetrated the ego-illusion and is still attached to self-vanity will believe that it is he himself that suffers, will believe that is he himself that performs the good and evil deeds leading to his rebirth, that it is he himself that will enter Nirvana, that is he himself that will bring the eightfold path to perfection.

Whoso, however, has fully penetrated the egolessness of existence, knows that, in the highest sense, there is no individual that suffers, that commits the kammic deeds, that enters Nirvana, and that brings the Eightfold Path to perfection.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a.../wheel202.html

Hope this helps,

Tom

All your copy & paste info : seems to confuse you. Read or listen to some Dharma teachings, thats the best place for you to learn. HHDL at Mind & Life Inst: are excellent, also TNH does some excellent talks. Of course there are others... but I would recommnend these two for beginners. Hope this helps :smile:

Hi Sky,

How am I confused? The post above agrees with what I have posted previously in this thread.

Also, HHDL practices Dzogchen, so are you now okay with the Dzogchen view on Emptiness, etc..?

I have been at each polar opposite and there's no end to 'polar opposite'...like when Lord Brahma and Lord Vishnu tried to find the ends of Jyotir Lingam.

I have been Buddhist and Hindu Advaita, also following the path of Non-Dualism, but concluded Duality must fall within. It wasn't that one had the choice to either be 'self' or 'non-self' - the choice didn't exist. Free will theory fell flat.

However, even qualified non-dualism didn't come close to it in terms of when duality is seen in a dual sense it becomes the absolute - my path of Tantra.

At first I was struggling with the whole concept of 'loving myself AS God' and not 'loving God' and that's how this particular belief has affected me, but I realised that in the whole nature of things one can be both 'self' and 'non self' simultaneously and that's when one can fully experience the whole relationship with spirit/god as being 'not god' and 'not ego'. It's called Bedha-abheda.

Yeah, confusing, I know. lol

Put me down as "Hindu Soul'. LOL

Alternatives
 

Personally, I have a concept of a soul, even though I have a buddhist goddess:). When it comes to Buddhism. I think it's highly misrepresented in the west. In the west most of the people understand Buddhism as somekind of ''atheistic philosophy,'' even though it's far away from that. There gives schools in Buddhism as Theravada which is quite atheistic, but still far away from it and otherwise Theravada Buddhism and schools as ZEN are actauly the smallest branch of Buddhism in the east. The most widespread Buddhist branches are Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna. Pure Land Buddhism which is in the west totaly unknown is one of the most popular forms of Buddhism in the east. Pure Land Buddhism is (very) similar to Christianity and others monotheistic religions. While this no self stuff it's a part of Buddhism, which hardly anyone take serious or follow it since it's in contradiction of oneself. Buddhism also contains contradictions or flaws as every other religion. Without a self there is no experience. So simple is it. You cannot have an experience without a self. And everything is an experience. Peace is an experience, bliss is an experience,..anger is an experience,..calmness is an experience,..

I belive in all . :D

These are just words. And when you get caught in words, you will live unconsciously rather than mindfully.

Hindus were caught in words similarly, and that is why Buddha brought a paradigm shift and introduced the no-self.

This incensed a lot of Hindus because of their emotional investment in the Atman, which Buddha contradicted now. And this is exactly why Buddha did so as well, to get them out of the intellectual grip of words, and realize the truth experientially.

The basic premise in Buddhist philosophy in regards to self isn't any of theory of self, and that's what sets it apart from the 'atman construct' in Hinduism. Not a different self-theory to Hinduism, but the absence of one. Read from section 15 'Ground for views' here if interested https://what-buddha-said.net/library/Wheels/wh048.pdf.

The other thing is, 'anatta' is literally translated to 'not-self' in many, many suttas on self. In other contexts, though, anatta means 'empty of self' or no-self (sunna sutta: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi....085.than.html)

Its been an interesting thread. The word 'anatta' always pertains to the notion of self, but 'self' is used in different ways. Self is firstly a question of personal identity, and secondly, it asks if there is any fundamental substance to matter (or is it 'empty'?)

In very general terms, one may investigate their own body and mind to see if 'myself' is there or not, and to see if the body/mind (and by extension, all matter) has any substance - or is it 'empty'. In theory 'anatta' and 'emptiness' are two different things, but in practice they are aspects of the same thing.

I find the 'Hindu' explanation most 'logical' but then 'Hinduism' is possibly the most elaborate and detailed religion in the world.
I follow the notion of an individual Self or soul, as well as an overlying 'supersoul' or God to which all life is connected..

I have not carefully studied Buddhist literature but is it not possible that this soul vs. non-soul is merely a matter of etymology..?
Perhaps he did acknowledge a Self but in a conversation about it denied any definition of Self or specific Vedic concept of Self?

Spiritual language is fuzzy, it can easily be misunderstood.

What if the Buddha simply didn't find the Self or soul? What if all he found was an elaborate way to relieve sorrow but not the way to develop the soul? Could be.

Realisation of the Self in Hinduism also destroys sorrow.

But Hindus had started regarding the soul in Hinduism as an extension of the ego due to lack of proper meditative awareness. In reality it is a false self created by psychological memories and impressions. But they were content in doing good karmas to gain a better rebirth and so on and not enlightenment.

This is why Buddha stated that there is no soul, only a false self, and void and impermanence is the true nature of things. This ensured that no more identification with the soul/false self takes place.

Imo, the Self and Awareness and Emptiness are one and the same.

Awareness through meditation destroys these psychological impressions which creates the false self.

I disagree, I see a soul attached to our body, and I am calling that soul my true or immortal self, which has to be nurtured in the material plane. I have no idea why this is so at the moment, but this is the story that most makes sense to me.

Does it matter what story we believe? I think it probably does.

Your beliefs will condition your experiences, and prevent the perception of truth which is unconditioned.

You cling to your beliefs due to the fear of emptiness within, and these in turn create the false self.

Indeed, it is largely semantic, and words like 'anatta' mean different things in different contexts. The main clinker in Buddhism is the 'nirvana state', so Buddhism isn't simply self-nihilistic, as in no-self means you don't exist. The centre of Buddha's argument in this regard only arose because the established brahmins criticised his teaching - as they affirmed the 'atman' explanation of self. Buddha's point was basically that holding a self-theory to be true leads to despair and suffering.

The Buddhist teaching on not-self/no-self is basically the same as the Hindu neti-neti (not me, not mine, not I) so these religions are not at loggerheads in any practical way. It's just that the brahmins had a theory of self and Buddha didn't.

All roads lead to Rome, as they say. Every religion is relevant and every religion has truth embedded in it. Most of that truth has been destroyed by the greed and avarice of man, of course, but ultimately there is only one God and Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism, Shinto, Shamanism, Paganism etc. are simply different paths to the same destination. It's whatever works for the individual. The Universe really doesn't mind.