buddhism and anatma

[bodhichitta 0]

In buddhism, the atma is denied becasue there is no direct experience of it. Can vaishnavaism prove the existence of the atma?

[Tirisilex 0]

Are you talking about having a soul? That would be Atman not Atma.

[Guest guest]

All glories to SRILA PRABHUPADA

 

in Vainavism, atman is called Paramatma and it is proved by consciousness.

 

hari bol

 

 

[bodhichitta 0]

How can you prove consciousness as something permanent? Do you have experience of it after death?

[Tirisilex 0]

How is consciousness different then awareness? Does the Buddha not say awareness as the only thing that is permenant?

[bodhichitta 0]

I am not sure. I would have to check. But if awarness can be claimed the same as consciousness, Buddhism does not consider anything to be permanent, so even that would only be depedent on the existence of the five aggregates which is basically sensory perception, which is different lifetime after lifetime, so there is nothing remaining the same each lifetime.

[mud 0]

okay, I'm following the argument... If the aggregates are temporary, then the self is also. That's what Buddhism says. I would say that yes, that temporary self, the ego of that one body, dies when the body dies. In that sense the self is temporary. We take on different egos with each body. We become bodily conscious, aware of our body and we identify with that body. That dies because the body dies and there is nothing to identify with.

 

From a Vaishnava perspective though the self is the basis of the identity. It is the one doing the identifying... It is different from consciousness. The self is what develops the temporary ego. That's why it is said that consciousness is the symptom of self. It indicates it's presence.

 

As for the self being permanent, one cannot perceive with the senses that it is permanent. One can only perceive that consciousness is present or absent.

[autumn 0]

Really we're just talking about different ways to define terms/words. Words are subjective, and relative and can be used in a variety of different ways. The point seems to be to extract the essence and to realize or experience that essential teaching which goes beyond or can not be contained with words and language.

 

So why are certain words used to describe or point in certain directions? Probobly it has alot to do with time place and circumstance. When we use words like "eternal", "self", "soul", "deathless" etc, each one of us comes up with a different idea of what exactly we mean when we use or hear these terms. This is true in all languages. In sanskrit the word atma (atta in pali...)is used in a variety of different ways. And it also gets translated in a variety of different ways. So whats the point? Buddhism and Hinduism both agree on a certain simple ideas; body is not eternal, not my "self", mind is constantly changing from moment to moment therefore not me, not self. Both say that the truth does not end with body or mind, but that there is an Absolute reality beyond the confines of body, mind, time etc. Vaishnavism accept as doctrine that beyond body and mind there is the soul or the jivatma which is the true nature, or true eternal identity or the "living entity".

 

In essance Vaishnavism/Hinduism says that if one can discover/uncover/realize/be situated in, pure awareness of this "original nature", one becomes "self-less", devoid of selfishness, free from desire to serve one's self, compassionate for all other beings, and liberated, "free". One looses all possesivness. One does not even consider one's "self" as belonging to one's "self". They are free from the desire to aquire anything, or to own anything etc. No conception of I, Me, and Mine.

 

Buddhism says beyond the body and mind there is the deathless element. Buddhism also uses phrases like; "our Original Nature", "Original Mind", etc. I think the Buddha said there is no "atma" because it is the tendancy of many materialistc people when they hear this word "self" to instantly become attached to the idea of ownership, possesivness, grasping, attachment, and subtle or gross I, Me, and Mine attitudes. So for the sake of PRACTICE, this idea of no-self (anatma, anatta) is talked about. We can witness the nature of self-ness in this world as constantly changing, temporary. In the liberated state one has no self-concept what so ever, in other words they are liberated from selfishness. They foreget themselves, so to speak. Buddhism does not use the terms "self" to describe this liberated state because in ESSENCE, one is self-less, free from the possesive/controller, self concept.

 

Really, in my mind its just an argument over semantics. If one wants to call that which is beyond or transcendental to body and mind atma, paramatma, self, soul, the deathless, brahman or swiss cheese really is of no relevant consequence, privided they are practicing spirituality in such a way as to become truly free from selfishness.

 

To me this is the main point. PRACTICE. Investigate these things and realize them. I think that those liberated beings who have experienced these truths have grasped the inconcievability of these truths by the limited mind, so to simply point people in the write direction they revert to the limited languages of the cultures they are living in. For us, our job seems to extract the essance, and practice to see what happens. If I become motivated towards selflessness by the concept that I have an eternal self, and I can witness progress from my spiritual endeavors, that whats the harm? If I feel more motivated by the no-self concept, and I practice to become selfless because of it, whats the harm?

 

Peace, Autumn.

[Tirisilex 0]

Well said..

[Guest guest]

very well put. It will take me time to respond. I don't think buddhists are satisfied with saying that its the same thing just different language. The Buddha and others contemporary were very aware of the difference between true self and false self, and still he denies the true self or atma. I will do homework. Where did you study all this? Are you Male or female and vaishnava or just student of theism?

[Tirisilex 0]

I talked with my Lama (I'm a practicing Tibetan Buddhist) and he said that "Yes, awareness is the only thing permanent. Because it is not conditioned by Karma." He said the book "Everyday Consiousness and Buddha-Awakening" explains this.

 

Just FYI..

 

[bodhichitta 0]

I don't think the buddha proposes that awareness is permanent. Are you sure. Can you show me in writing what yur lama says. Who is your lama?

[Tirisilex 0]

My Lamas name is Zopa. (No he is not the famous Zopa) He's a student under Kalu Rinpoche. Information on Kalu is here: http://quietmountain.org/links/teachings/late_kalu_rin_bio.htm

 

As for showing you in wiriting, I told you what book it is in. I'm gonna have to read through it and find references so it may take awhile.

[bodhichitta 0]

So your Lama Zopa is in kagyu lineage as opposed to the Lama Zopa of Gelupa tradition. Are you familiar with the controversy going on with Dorje Shugden. Some say he is a ghost and some say a buddha. It reminds me of the Bhaktipada episode.

[Guest guest]

Dear Tirisilex,

I've heard this word Rigpa before. I think it's a Tibetan word, do you know what it means. I have an interesting book by a Buddhist monk in the Theravada Thai forest tradition (which I seem to derive most of my inspiration these days) called "Small Boat, Great Mountain" (by Ajahn Amaro) and it is comparing the Dzogchen tradition of Tibet with the Thai forest tradition...He talks about this word Rigpa as being like the "ground" consciousness of existence, sort of the underlying awareness principle that you seem to be talking about...? Anyhow, just thought it was interesting and was wondering what you thought.

[autumn 0]

oh heck, i forgot to log in on that last one about Rigpa...

[Tirisilex 0]

I pulled out my Dzogchen book and looked up Rigpa for ya.. This is what I found

 

Rigpa is one of the key terms in Dzogchen teachings. Its literal meaning is "knowledge," but the accepted use of the term in Dzogchen expresses much more than that. It refers to the intuitive and direct knowledge of the primordial condition, maintained as a living presence. In the book "Dzogchen, The Self-Perfected State" the term rig pais rendered as "the state of presence," and sometimes as just "presence."

[Tirisilex 0]

Bodhichitta,

 

I'm part of a Buddhist forum as well. It's a decent one and I thought you might be interested in it.

 

http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?

[Guest guest]

There is an Unborn, an Unoriginated, an Uncompounded. Were this not so there would be no escape from the world of the born, the originated, the compound..........

 

There is a wonderful ancient Indian legend that tells of a young man who is cast from his father's home who goes to visit the Lord of Death, Yama. But yama was not home and when he returned gave the boy some boons because of the lack of hospitality.

 

 

For the final boon the boy asks is "Some say the soul exists after death. Some say it does not. On this I desire knowledge from you."

 

Death got really freaked out and told him he would give him amazing material things make him a king give him 100's of grandsons instead, but the boy was adamant.

 

He said-Keep your horses and fine things. Having wealth and seeing death how can we live but at your pleasure? What man living in this world knowing he decays and dies while beholding the changeless immortals can rejoice in beauty or love r care for long life? I want no other boon but that which concerns the soul."

 

Death replied,

"The good is one thing, the pleasant another. Both chain man. It is well with him that choses the good. He who choses the pleasant misses the object of man.

 

He the Soul is inconceivably more subtle than the subtle. By no reasoning can this be reached. Only when a teacher teaches can it be learned.

 

You are the seeker of Him that is hard to see, who dwells in the mysteries, who is hodden in the caverns of the heart, an impenitrible thicket. When a man has heard and accepted this and has stripped off all sense of right and wrong when he has attained "That Subtle One, then he rejoices.

 

The boy said "Then make known to me this thing which differs from virtue and vice differs from the whole of effects and causes, differs from past and present and future."

 

Death responded,

"The soul does not born nor does it die. It is not priduced from anyone nor does it produce. It is unborn, eternal, timeless, ancient. It is not slain when the body is slain. If the slayer thinks he slays or the slain that he is slain they are in error. The soul is neither slain nor slain."

 

The Self lodges in the heart of each man is smaller than the small, greater than the great. The man whose will is at rest sees Him and is freed from sorrow.

 

Who but I can know that divine self is joyful-yet above joy. He is bodiless yet dwells in things incarnate.

 

He is permanent yet dwells in things inpermanent.

 

Know the embodied soul is the rider, the body is the vehicle, intellect is the charioteer, and the mind is the reins. The senses they say are the horses and the objects of sense the roads. If a man is without wisdom and uncontrolled his senses are like the vicious horses of the charioteer. If a man is without wisdom and impure he does not attain his Home but goes on the road of births and deaths. If a man has wisdom he attains that Home from which he does not return again in birth.

 

Higher than the senses are their objects, higher than these objects is the mind, higher than the mind is Intelligence, higher than Intelligence is the Great Self. Higher than the Great Self is the Unmanifested, Higher than the Unmanifested is the Soul. Higher than the Soul is Nothing. That is the goal."

 

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

 

Another legend that deals with this is a father asks his son to bring him a fruit of a nyagrodha tree.

 

He tells the boy to break it and ask what he sees.

 

Almost infinitesimal seeds..

 

He tells the boy to break a seed.

 

What do you see"

 

Nothing Sir.

 

The father replies that subtle essense which cannnot be perceived from which the great nyagrodha tree arises, is the Self. In that which is the subtle essense everty existent thing has its Self.

 

It is the Self, and you are That.

 

============================================================

 

I do not know that it is so much that there is no soul that casues such hot deabte, it more than likely is because Gautama did not see it. Can't fault him as it is notoriously hard to see as it is said by many enlightened sages to be intrisically empty.

 

Yet from a Hindu perspective the state of enlightenment of a Buddha is not by any means the highest state- it is a middle road state-very functional and useful to mankind-easy to get across to others. Vey simply it is considered the realization of dependent origination.

 

 

Yet it is not at the level of the state ancients called "Aham Bramhasmin" where some would declare "I am That" a state where there is no separation between the experience and the experiencer. No sense of separate existence at all.

 

The state of a Buddha which a high state indeed is still a view. There is a seer and a seen in that way of perceiving. It is a state of passive witnessing.

 

 

 

Many sages throughout history have attained enlightenment yet they were not God realized or Self realized.

 

 

 

This lack of seeing or different perception than that of sages who were god realized or Seolf realized has caused tremendous debate and even atheism amongst their followers.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I read it explained this way:

 

The "Self" is a word, a linguistic concept, that is all. It is like the word "horse." A horse has legs, hoofs, mane, eyes, nostrils, etc. The separate parts of the "horse" are not the "horse." The "Self" is like the word "horse", and desires are the separate parts of the "horse." Take away the separate parts of the "horse" and the "horse" disappears, IT GOES. The separate parts of the "horse", that make up the entity "horse", are like the "desires" the ever-changingly flow into and make up the "Self."

 

I read it explained this way as well:

 

When all desires are extinguished, it is like the flame of a candle going out. The flame, ever flowing, unstable, is the Self. When the flame has no more fuel (desires), IT just GOES OUT.

 

When the Buddha reached Nirvana ("Awareness"), his Self disappeared. What did the Buddha leave behind? The Dharma. The disciple looks at the Dharma and asks, where did the Buddha GO? The Buddha just WENT, leaving behind the Dharma.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

The Buddhist Self = EGO or Ahamkar of Hinduism

 

The Upanishad SELF = GOD who is unborn, deathless, eternal and immutable. SELF is SUPPORT or GROUND for everything that exists.

[Guest guest]

vaishnavaism what does it mean? What do you mean by atma?

[bodhichitta 0]

Come on now, read the thread. It is already been clarified that atma or atman is the self. And if you do not know what is vaishnavism, then I am afraid you will have to do more reading.

 

What is guest?