Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Religions & Faiths > Interfaith

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 01-05-2018, 10:01 AM
ajay00 ajay00 is offline
Master
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,292
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by django
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.


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.
__________________
When even one virtue becomes our nature, the mind becomes clean and tranquil. Then there is no need to practice meditation; we will automatically be meditating always. ~ Swami Satchidananda

Wholesome virtuous behavior progressively leads to the foremost.~ Buddha AN 10.1

If you do right, irrespective of what the other does, it will slow down the (turbulent) mind. ~ Rajini Menon
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-05-2018, 12:00 PM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 22,074
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesboy
That is not what anatta means. It is what split the Buddha from Hinduism.

Sunyata, no thing, no soul, no atman.

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)
__________________
Radiate boundless love towards the entire world ~ Buddha
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-05-2018, 12:58 PM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 22,074
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by django
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.

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.
__________________
Radiate boundless love towards the entire world ~ Buddha
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-05-2018, 07:46 PM
Altair Altair is offline
Master
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Everywhere... and Nowhere
Posts: 6,631
  Altair's Avatar
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.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-05-2018, 12:21 AM
django django is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,485
  django's Avatar
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.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-05-2018, 01:31 AM
ajay00 ajay00 is offline
Master
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,292
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by django
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.
__________________
When even one virtue becomes our nature, the mind becomes clean and tranquil. Then there is no need to practice meditation; we will automatically be meditating always. ~ Swami Satchidananda

Wholesome virtuous behavior progressively leads to the foremost.~ Buddha AN 10.1

If you do right, irrespective of what the other does, it will slow down the (turbulent) mind. ~ Rajini Menon
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-05-2018, 02:08 AM
django django is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,485
  django's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajay00
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.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-05-2018, 02:57 AM
ajay00 ajay00 is offline
Master
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,292
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by django
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.
__________________
When even one virtue becomes our nature, the mind becomes clean and tranquil. Then there is no need to practice meditation; we will automatically be meditating always. ~ Swami Satchidananda

Wholesome virtuous behavior progressively leads to the foremost.~ Buddha AN 10.1

If you do right, irrespective of what the other does, it will slow down the (turbulent) mind. ~ Rajini Menon
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-05-2018, 06:49 AM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 22,074
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altair
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.

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.
__________________
Radiate boundless love towards the entire world ~ Buddha
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-05-2018, 08:03 AM
Rod288 Rod288 is offline
Newbie ;)
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 7
 
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums