Soul and Buddhism

what I am learning from all of this is that spiritual awareness, if that is what it is, is actually a skill, not a set of beliefs. Beliefs are involved, but thinking it is about believing or 'clinging to a viewpoint' is not the point and also won't do the job. There has to be some way of engaging with..whatever it is...from the 'heart'. This is where the Buddhist teaching excels - it is unparalleled in my view. It is also non-sectarian and non-exclusivist.

Is the concept of oneness and the interconnectedness, interrelatedness of all things a Buddhist concept or not?

Is the notion of the other as self, and serving the other as enlighted "self-interest" not part of the tradition?

Does the "enlightened one" still have an identity (a self) which is separate from "ultimate reality"?

But it is nevertheless the case that he founded a spiritual movement, with rules, goals, practises, observance, teachings, and so on, which persists to this day. Is it not?

It is also true that the Buddha was a skeptic, in the true sense, rather than the sense that people understand the word today (which is that 'the sensory realm is the sole reality and spirituality sucks'.)

Nagarjuna kind of 'blew the whistle' on the whole show. The main aim in Buddhism is always to gain liberation by actual insight, to see how things really are, and how the principles apply in your life. And the insight is not a matter of conceptual analysis - it is 'performative' not 'propositional'. Practise, practise, practise. That is very much what it is about.

In the western tradition one understands sin to be separation or alimentation from god. This does not seem too different from the eastern notion of ignorance and illusion as separating one from enlightenment or true reality. I am one who sees all the great religious traditions as pointing to the same truth. Each tradition is using those symbols, those practices which are appropriate to their society, history and culture. There is no single path up the mountain but many routes and many approaches all leading to the same summit.

Even the highest states of jhana, including infinite consciousness, are still dukkha. Jesus' Father and kingdom of heaven is nothing at all like nibbana. Anatta means "no-soul", and some other idea of oneness, infinite consciousness, absolute spirit, or whatever you may call it, existing in Buddhism, is a common Western misconception of Buddhist teachings. The Buddha never taught it; he specifically dismissed such questions, saying they were not useful for the attainment of enlightenment.

I would say deep faith, meaningful faith, productive faith is more about action in the world than about belief in doctrine, creed, or dogma.
It is about trust that there is deeper meaning and purpose in life.
It is about hope that in the end justice, truth and beauty will triumph.
People with faith of this kind work together in the world to create and acheive value and justice despite the different ways, symbols and practices they ultilize in conceptualizing or describing their notions of the sacred, the holy, the numinous the divine "god". Non sectarianism and non eclusivity are features of secure faith. faith which is not threatened by diversity. Diversity is divine. Faith unites and doctrines divides.

But this again raise the same questions? Who is that which attains Nirvana? There may be found many tricks but the fact is that all they are not important neither for me nor for anyone. When one understands reality (without preconception of what he should understand), is there need to call that self or not-self. It doesn't really matter when one is there. Especially it doesn't matter for those who are not there because what bears it to them? Nothing but the foundation of new belief system.

"Were a man to say: I shall show the coming, the going, the passing away, the arising, the growth, the increase or the development of consciousness apart from matter, sensation, perception, and mental formations, he would be speaking of something that does not exist."

"Mere suffering exists, but no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer is found"

Who knows, who knows? The Buddha did not write any letter himself and that crowd which proclaimed itself to be 'sangha' interpreted his words and then the interpretation of his words according to their own understanding. The case is similar to that with Socrates (who also rejected those metaphysical speculation on the same ground as Gautama) we can only reconstruct something without being sure that he really said that.

Well, actually, the sensory realm is really the sole reality, if we look what the word reality means. It comes from Latin word "res" which means "thing", therefore only things are real. The problem of so-called spiritualists is that they are afraid to accept the process of gaining knowledge. In the core of it lies the fear, the fear before one's own instincts which thou hast called inborn. When those instincts dissolve, there comes reconciliation with the world, with materialism etc.
The things are real and there is absolutely no doubt in it because even thy idea to reject them comes from them.

This sounds ridiculous: annihilating criticism of any mental construct and then establishment of practice which is surely the result of the same constructs. Is it only I who sees this blatant contradiction.

Surely sin as a "spiritual crime" does not exist. It may be understood as an ignorant action which leads to the unhappiness (my unhappiness) but seems to be quite far from the meaning it has in our heads. Therefore it is better to avoid it so as to evade confusion.

But this again raise the same questions? Who is that which attains Nirvana? There may be found many tricks but the fact is that all they are not important neither for me nor for anyone. When one understands reality (without preconception of what he should understand), is there need to call that self or not-self. It doesn't really matter when one is there. Especially it doesn't matter for those who are not there because what bears it to them? Nothing but the foundation of new belief system.

No, prothero, faith can never lead thee to God or whatever is beyond this world. The faith can only align thee with thy past, ideals which were embedded in thy head by society. The true religion does not know faith. Religion, Nirvana comes only when there is no border between me an reality, no struggle with what is, the acceptance.

Diamond Sutra - Chapter 3.

"All living beings, whether born from eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have form; whether they are aware or unaware, whether they are not aware or not unaware, all living beings will eventually be led by me to the final Nirvana, the final ending of the cycle of birth and death. And when this unfathomable, infinite number of living beings have all been liberated, in truth not even a single being has actually been liberated." "Why Subhuti? Because if a disciple still clings to the arbitrary illusions of form or phenomena such as an ego, a personality, a self, a separate person, or a universal self existing eternally, then that person is not an authentic disciple."

[CENTER]The Mangala Sutta


[INDENT][INDENT] Thus have I heard:

Once while the Blessed One was staying in the vicinity of Saavatthi, in the Jeta Grove, in Anaathapi.n.dika's monastery, a certain deity, whose surpassing brilliance and beauty illumined the entire Jeta Grove, late one night came to the presence of the Blessed One; having come to him and offered profound salutations he stood on one side and spoke to him reverently in the following verse:[/INDENT][/INDENT]


Many deities and human beings
Have pondered what are blessings,
Which they hope will bring them safety:
Declare to them, Sir, the Highest Blessing.

(To this the Blessed One replied):

With fools no company keeping.
With the wise ever consorting,
To the worthy homage paying:
This, the Highest Blessing.

Congenial place to dwell,
In the past merits making,
One's self directed well:
This, the Highest Blessing.

Ample learning, in crafts ability,
With a well-trained disciplining,
Well-spoken words, civility:
This, the Highest Blessing.

Mother, father well supporting,
Wife and children duly cherishing,
Types of work unconflicting:
This, the Highest Blessing.

Acts of giving, righteous living,
Relatives and kin supporting,
Actions blameless then pursuing:
This, the Highest Blessing.

Avoiding evil and abstaining,
From besotting drinks refraining,
Diligence in Dhamma doing:
This, the Highest Blessing.

Right reverence and humility
Contentment and a grateful bearing,
Hearing Dhamma when it's timely:
This, the Highest Blessing.

Patience, meekness when corrected,
Seeing monks and then discussing
About the Dhamma when it's timely:
This, the Highest Blessing.

Self-restraint and holy life,
All the Noble Truths in-seeing,
Realization of Nibbaana:
This, the Highest Blessing.

Though touched by worldly circumstances,
Never his mind is wavering,
Sorrowless, stainless and secure:
This, the Highest Blessing.

Since by acting in this way,
They are everywhere unvanquished,
And everywhere they go in safety:
Theirs, the Highest Blessings.


Here ends the Discourse on Blessings.[/CENTER]

It does not actually raise such questions; There is not a person or self reaching Nirvana, from an absolute standpoint. As I noted earlier, the Buddha spoke of conventional truths and absolute truths. Speaking of one individual who personally may reach Nirvana is conventional speak, as that person absolutely is dukkha, impermanent, and any identity that he may have is not a part of the unconditioned.

I think we can be sure he said something very much along the lines of what is presented in the various Buddhist schools of today. Maybe not letter for letter, but very close. Otherwise, it is just an excuse to disregard the whole teaching and carry on like it was never enunciated.

But this is materialism, is it not? Only things are real? According to the Buddhist tradition, which I don't think you could call 'spiritualist', the sensory realm is acutally a composite of constantly changing phenomenal moments combined through the actions of the five Skandha to create an appearance of reality.

There is only a contradiction if your practise is conducted for selfish reasons. If you practise for the benefit of all beings, then there is no contradiction.

I have to say "acceptance" "detachment" "indifference" is just not the Western way. The Western way is to solve problems and try to make the world a better place. To struggle and suffer in the pursuit of higher values and higher ideals. Ideally those pursuits involve freedom, creativity, human rights, human respect and equality of opportunity, respresentative government and the rule of law but "acceptance" is just not the "way".

I don't think that Buddhism teaches a person to simply "accept" and not try to make the world a better place. In fact, Buddhism is all about changing the way our minds work, in order to be more compassionate and understanding. When more people make this change, there is improvement on the societal scale.

This does not at all mean that impermanent, worldly affairs are not important. Take the Dalai Lama, for example, who is Buddhist, but very political, and involved in many Western affairs.

Pangloss is entirely correct. Buddhism has been a vastly civilizing influence where it has gone, and is generally very progressive and practical. The image of the indifferent sage absorbed in nirvanic bliss is a stereotype from the Catholic Encyclopedia. (Look it up - it is exactly what it says.) King Asoka, the Buddhist Monarch, created one of the first universal civil codes and concept of the welfare state, all before the birth of Jesus. In fact if Buddhist civilization in India had not been destroyed by the Mughals, who knows what the result might have been.

With fools no company keeping...