Soulmate Twinflames according to Buddhism

[Imzadi]

I understand that Buddhism do not refer to the terminology of a soul, but perhaps there are different terms in Buddhist cosmology that could mean something similar? What is a mind stream? What is a sentient being? What is it that reincarnates into multiple lives? What and who is it that cultivates the path to awakening?

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by Imzadi

I understand that Buddhism do not refer to the terminology of a soul, but perhaps there are different terms in Buddhist cosmology that could mean something similar? What is a mind stream? What is a sentient being? What is it that reincarnates into multiple lives? What and who is it that cultivates the path to awakening?

Yea Buddhism totally believes in a "soul." They just don't want to call it that because of various reasons. Almost all the Buddhist leaders say they are this or that Buddhist Master who died and is now reborn as them. That's the whole point of that movie "Little Buddha." A whole bunch of Buddhist monks are trying to find out who their leader who died is now reincarnated as. So they find 3 kids and test them to see which is their master who died. Like they put out 3 eating bowls, one of which belonged to their master, and ask the kids to pick one. If I remember right, at the end they decide their master has reincarnated as all three children. Not sure as I saw that movie a long time ago.

Buddhism is a very complicated belief system that has to not identify with belief as one of it's goals. So yea very complicated and confusing in parts.

The "no self" thing is often misunderstood but the realization that everything is constantly changing is at the core of their "no self" or "no soul" philosophy. What is often missed is something is aware everything is constantly changing, and that does not change. That is basically what other religions and philosophies call the soul. But that unconditioned awareness behind everything we experience is not really talked about in Buddhist philosophy. If Buddhist" philosophy does "talk" about it, it is called things like "Nirvana" or "Void" or "Emptiness" or "Silence." They don't use terms that would refer to a "self" as they feel since "self" is constantly changing, it is not what we are. It's like this lifetime I am Joe, the last one I was Mary, this "I" that was in both can't be talked about because in this life time it would be "Joe" talking about it and it is not Joe. If I say, I am the soul, that's like saying Joe is the soul and Joe comes and goes. I was Mary, then Joe, then next I will be Lama Ram. I am not these things. What "I" am is the awareness before it is conditioned as this person or that one. This body and it's memories and experiences and point of view, of that is all temporary.

Like I said, if this "soul" in Buddhism is referred to, it is referred to only as the awareness that sees it is not Mary and Joe. This awareness does not name things. It is not focused on thought and thinking as these are just products of this temporary person that comes from this temporary body we are merged with.

Really, we don't have a "soul," we are the soul. A "soul" that experiences a life as Mary then a life as Joe. Awareness, consciousness, is 100% the soul. I am soul. I am awareness. I am conscious. But yea this turns into a completed mess because I can be unaware of myself which is really hard to understand.

The basic situation is during an incarnation, we merge with a human body, it's brain and it's mind. Merge means intertwined with. I step on a hot coal I feel it. I experience it. But I am in the body and it's mind. Those are not what I am. But because of this merged situation, I feel what the body does. I am aware of what the brain thinks, I experience what the body does. I experience this life as me, as Mary or Joe.

Buddhist are basically a bunch of people trying to figure all of this out in various ways. Like Buddha came up with the idea, ok self caused suffering is from what I am thinking about what I am experiencing, so if I stop identifying with what I am thinking about stuff, this mental self caused suffering ends.

It's basically we are within this robot with an amazing computer brain that is many, many thousands of years more advanced than we are. We then try to be happy. This robot is designed to be self centered, selfish, into seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, fearful, obsessive and on and on. So that's what life is, or an incarnation, trying to figure out how to control this robot or live with it in such a way we are happy and content in all situations. Live with it in a way we are without conflict within and without. In a way that does not harm others or ourselves.

It turns out the best way to do all that is to detach from a lot of it. Use our awareness to be aware of the body and it's brain stuff, and ignore it, transcend it, not make it a part of our experience or "us."

[sky]

Originally Posted by Rain95

Yea Buddhism totally believes in a "soul." They just don't want to call it that because of various reasons. Almost all the Buddhist leaders say they are this or that Buddhist Master who died and is now reborn as them. That's the whole point of that movie "Little Buddha." A whole bunch of Buddhist monks are trying to find out who their leader who died is now reincarnated as. So they find 3 kids and test them to see which is their master who died. Like they put out 3 eating bowls, one of which belonged to their master, and ask the kids to pick one. If I remember right, at the end they decide their master has reincarnated as all three children. Not sure as I saw that movie a long time ago.

Buddhism is a very complicated belief system that has to not identify with belief as one of it's goals. So yea very complicated and confusing in parts.

The "no self" thing is often misunderstood but the realization that everything is constantly changing is at the core of their "no self" or "no soul" philosophy. What is often missed is something is aware everything is constantly changing, and that does not change. That is basically what other religions and philosophies call the soul. But that unconditioned awareness behind everything we experience is not really talked about in Buddhist philosophy. If Buddhist" philosophy does "talk" about it, it is called things like "Nirvana" or "Void" or "Emptiness" or "Silence." They don't use terms that would refer to a "self" as they feel since "self" is constantly changing, it is not what we are. It's like this lifetime I am Joe, the last one I was Mary, this "I" that was in both can't be talked about because in this life time it would be "Joe" talking about it and it is not Joe. If I say, I am the soul, that's like saying Joe is the soul and Joe comes and goes. I was Mary, then Joe, then next I will be Lama Ram. I am not these things. What "I" am is the awareness before it is conditioned as this person or that one. This body and it's memories and experiences and point of view, of that is all temporary.

Like I said, if this "soul" in Buddhism is referred to, it is referred to only as the awareness that sees it is not Mary and Joe. This awareness does not name things. It is not focused on thought and thinking as these are just products of this temporary person that comes from this temporary body we are merged with.

Really, we don't have a "soul," we are the soul. A "soul" that experiences a life as Mary then a life as Joe. Awareness, consciousness, is 100% the soul. I am soul. I am awareness. I am conscious. But yea this turns into a completed mess because I can be unaware of myself which is really hard to understand.

The basic situation is during an incarnation, we merge with a human body, it's brain and it's mind. Merge means intertwined with. I step on a hot coal I feel it. I experience it. But I am in the body and it's mind. Those are not what I am. But because of this merged situation, I feel what the body does. I am aware of what the brain thinks, I experience what the body does. I experience this life as me, as Mary or Joe.

Buddhist are basically a bunch of people trying to figure all of this out in various ways. Like Buddha came up with the idea, ok self caused suffering is from what I am thinking about what I am experiencing, so if I stop identifying with what I am thinking about stuff, this mental self caused suffering ends.

It's basically we are within this robot with an amazing computer brain that is many, many thousands of years more advanced than we are. We then try to be happy. This robot is designed to be self centered, selfish, into seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, fearful, obsessive and on and on. So that's what life is, or an incarnation, trying to figure out how to control this robot or live with it in such a way we are happy and content in all situations. Live with it in a way we are without conflict within and without. In a way that does not harm others or ourselves.

It turns out the best way to do all that is to detach from a lot of it. Use our awareness to be aware of the body and it's brain stuff, and ignore it, transcend it, not make it a part of our experience or "us."

' The "no self" thing is often misunderstood but the realization that everything is constantly changing is at the core of their "no self" or "no soul" philosophy. What is often missed........ '


Yes you have ' missed ' Rain....

Buddha never taught ' no ' self, the Anatta doctrine ' teaches ' not self ' rather than ' no self ' very different.

[Imzadi]

Originally Posted by sky123

' The "no self" thing is often misunderstood but the realization that everything is constantly changing is at the core of their "no self" or "no soul" philosophy. What is often missed........ '


Yes you have ' missed ' Rain....

Buddha never taught ' no ' self, the Anatta doctrine ' teaches ' not self ' rather than ' no self ' very different.

Can you please elaborate on the difference?

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sky123

Yes you have ' missed ' Rain....

Nope "Rain" was right here:

What is often missed is something is aware everything is constantly changing,

That something was me.

[Rain95]

The term in Buddhism that refers to what is the "soul" is in other belief systems is Citta Santana or "mindstream." "Citta may be translated as “that which is conscious,” “ordinary consciousness” or “the act of mental apprehension”; and santana may be translated as “a series of events” or “continuum. It is said that the citta santana continues from one life to another.”

See here:
https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/5952/citta-santana

[sky]

Originally Posted by Imzadi

Can you please elaborate on the difference?

Buddha never taught that there is no self, if he did then his teachings on Karma and Rebirth wouldn't make any sense. Buddha taught that we need to cease identifying with the five aggregates, we are not our physical body or the mind, not our perceptions; or our feelings; nor mental imprints which is what we usually identify as a self, we become attached to these ideas which are ' not self '.

The ' True Self ' of a Buddha, is one who had achieved cessation of attachment to the aggregates,

So we do have a 'Self ' but it is not what most of us identify with (The aggregates ) they are ' Not Self ' our 'True Self ' is beyond the aggregates .





The Buddha said, 'The body, O monks, is not the Self. Sensation is not the Self. Perception is not the Self. The mental constructions are not the Self. And neither is consciousness the Self. Perceiving this, O monks, the disciple sets no value on the body, or on sensation, or on perception, or on mental constructions, or on consciousness. Setting no value of them, he becomes free of passions and he is liberated. The knowledge of liberation arises there within him. And then he knows that he has done what has to be done, that he has lived the holy life, that he is no longer becoming this or that, that his rebirth is destroyed.' (Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta).



All conditioned things are impermanent,
All conditioned things are Dukka -- Suffering,
All conditioned or unconditioned things
are soulless or selfless. (Dhammapada 277, 278, 279)

[Imzadi]

Originally Posted by sky123

Buddha never taught that there is no self, if he did then his teachings on Karma and Rebirth wouldn't make any sense. Buddha taught that we need to cease identifying with the five aggregates, we are not our physical body or the mind, not our perceptions; or our feelings; nor mental imprints which is what we usually identify as a self, we become attached to these ideas which are ' not self '.

The ' True Self ' of a Buddha, is one who had achieved cessation of attachment to the aggregates,

So we do have a 'Self ' but it is not what most of us identify with (The aggregates ) they are ' Not Self ' our 'True Self ' is beyond the aggregates .

So the "True Self" as you described could be synonymous with how someone might think of as "Soul." From my understanding, that is how I perceive the terminology of the Soul; just as your eloquent definition of "True Self" that is beyond the aggregates. The path to awakening is the process of uncovering and realizing the True Self unfettered, free, and pure.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Imzadi

So the "True Self" as you described could be synonymous with how someone might think of as "Soul." From my understanding, that is how I perceive the terminology of the Soul; just as your eloquent definition of "True Self" that is beyond the aggregates. The path to awakening is the process of uncovering and realizing the True Self unfettered, free, and pure.

I don't think true self is part of the Buddhist teaching either, and it's not easy to understand how no self fits in with the concept of rebirth. Rebirth is to perpetuate a self from moment to moment where in actual fact everything of experience, body, mind is annihilated in each moment to be regenerated in the next by the process of kamma. Kamma is the volition, and the volition creates the potential which has to manifest when all the conditions for it to arise come together. Liberation from the cycle of rebirth is the cessation of volition. The volition is the desire and the aversion (or 'craving') which are reactions to the experience arising from the potentials of the volitions of the past, so in this sense kamma drives itself from reaction to reaction to sustain the delusion of a self (I react) that is continually reborn.



The meditation is a practice without volition, without any action/reaction element as one 'just observes'. That is, to observe without any reactions, without volition, to halt the kammic wheel. Then the experience continues to arise due to the stored potentials of the kamma of the past, but no new kamma is being generated. As the old potentials (called sankaras) arise in conscious awareness and dissolve away without any new potentials being generated, the old 'stockpile' of sankaras begins to dwindle, and hence the purification of meditation.


In the rhetoric of the Buddhist philosophy there is no self involved in the process because there is no enduring 'true nature', no substance to anything, or anatta: no self, or 'emptiness'.


So the word 'anatta' does mean no self in the context of 'emptiness', not identity, no fundamental substance, and it means not-self in context of any experience, mind, body having 'no self/me', or enduring substance.

[Imzadi]

Originally Posted by Gem

I don't think true self is part of the Buddhist teaching either, and it's not easy to understand how no self fits in with the concept of rebirth. Rebirth is to perpetuate a self from moment to moment where in actual fact everything of experience, body, mind is annihilated in each moment to be regenerated in the next by the process of kamma. Kamma is the volition, and the volition creates the potential which has to manifest when all the conditions for it to arise come together. Liberation from the cycle of rebirth is the cessation of volition. The volition is the desire and the aversion (or 'craving') which are reactions to the experience arising from the potentials of the volitions of the past, so in this sense kamma drives itself from reaction to reaction to sustain the delusion of a self (I react) that is continually reborn.



The meditation is a practice without volition, without any action/reaction element as one 'just observes'. That is, to observe without any reactions, without volition, to halt the kammic wheel. Then the experience continues to arise due to the stored potentials of the kamma of the past, but no new kamma is being generated. As the old potentials (called sankaras) arise in conscious awareness and dissolve away without any new potentials being generated, the old 'stockpile' of sankaras begins to dwindle, and hence the purification of meditation.


In the rhetoric of the Buddhist philosophy there is no self involved in the process because there is no enduring 'true nature', no substance to anything, or anatta: no self, or 'emptiness'.


So the word 'anatta' does mean no self in the context of 'emptiness', not identity, no fundamental substance, and it means not-self in context of any experience, mind, body having 'no self/me', or enduring substance.

That is interesting, Gem. Based on what you said, one might conclude that reincarnation is essentially the rebirth of causal events or phenomena rather than that of a self moving along a process. What someone might remember as multiple lives is merely an illusion of attachment to a dream constantly changing due to the causation (kamma). Is that what you mean?