The Enlightenment of the Buddha Sakyamuni: Hindu Yogi

 

House-Builder = Craving (tanha), the cause of Rebirth and Suffering

 

It cannot be craving. The Buddha said “Through many a birth I have wandered in samsara, seeking, but never finding, the House-Builder. It is such a sorrow to take birth again and again.” If it was craving then it would imply that he has been seeking for craving birth after birth, else he should have said, “…seeking, but never finding, the cause of rebirth and suffering.” But that's not what he said, he knew exactly WHOM he was seeking.

You must also put into consideration that he addressed the House-Builder as a person. If you just became fully-enlightened, thrilled at the very core, would you still afford to engage in symbolic language? Read the scriptures and endeavour to understand the words on your own, free from the interpretations of present-day Buddhism's dogmatic and superstitious ancestors. A certain view or tradition may be thousands of years old and still be wrong.

 

If anything seperate he was refering to would be none other than Craving (which is the housebuilder) itself. It is not difficult to understand, unless you are desperately trying to find faults with it. Why do you think  someone would refer to seperate Person (soul) who has taught soullessness thoughtout his 45 years of life?

 

Simple, because he never taught soullessness. That is just one of the countless parroted misinterpretations of his teachings.

I'm sorry but craving cannot be the House-Builder due to the rationale stated above and, also, if craving ultimately binds then no one will be enlightened, because all those who have consciously placed themselves on the path of enlightenment are “craving” to be enlightened.

 

1. Can you give me just one place where Buddha, according to you, never taught soullessness? in another word, taught soul? Give me Just one Canonical evidence where you found, in other words, Buddha is seen to teach Soulness (atta) in the Suttas. I will be happy to see it.

2. Commentators (4th century BC - 5th Century AD) don't play dice, they don't say things at random. What they said and wrote and interpreted are definite based on Buddhist teachings. So have you looked at the Dhammapadatthakatha yourself (before making claims) where this particular verse occurs and how it is interpreted? Why can't Craving be House-builder? The body and mind is the House. Who causes this house to be built is Craving. Say for example,  you like your beautiful body don't you? That liking is called craving (tanha), so because you built a desire on this body, which was nothing at the begining but combination of Five Aggregates of Form, Feelings, Conception, Mental formations and Consciousness, then you begin to think, oh this is Me, I am this, this is mine. I am seperate from others. Which Hinduism and other religions call it Soul, Self, Spirit, and so on, which in fact does not really exist, simply a projection of the mind, simply an idea built around it. Let me give you another example: have you seen “foam”, i m sure you do especially when you take a bath. The Soul View (atta) is like that. It is simply a substance that is formed by trapping many gas bubbles in a liquid or solid.

3. If you believe in a soul (something static, never dying and never ending and always same) doesn't that contradict to your own understanding. If soul exist which can never be dead, always moves one birth to another, then you can not change yourself. People are born dump, stupid, poor, ugly can never change and if some people are bad and evil who murderers, rapers, terrorists, lier, and so on they can never change, they will forever be the same. It is not logically right to say there is a soul that individually stays permanently. That thesis itself contracts to what you really experoence in this ever changing world.

4. You might ask (which is the usual question) who is reborn and experiences pain and happiness if there is no soul. Well, as I said, a being is made up  of Form, Feelings, Conception, Mental formations and Consciousness only, each one of them is connected to each other. They mutually perfumes each other, as a result it becomes a series, just like from the seeds, there is the sprout, then there is trunk, leaves, fruits, and then again seeds. It moves around in a series. Because there is seeds, there is plant (life), and if there is no seeds, then there is no plant as well. In the same way, the seeds are the Craving (house-builder), in Buddhism, which produces a thing call Being. That's why Buddha was revealing happily just after his fresh Englightenment, that he has understood and eradicated that Craving and there is no more rebirth for him, because it is such a sorrow to take birth again and again.

 

1. Can you give me even one authoritative passage where the Buddha taught that there is no soul?

2. Commentators, be it those from 4th Century B.C.E. or current ones, interpret scriptures according to their own conditioning and to serve their own agenda. Scriptures need not be interpreted or commented on but understood as they are, depending on the capacity of the reader.

3. Where did you get the idea that the soul is static, never dying, never ending, and always the same? That is wrong. The soul is an individualized unit of the One Great Power, God, the Creator or, in the words of the Buddha, the House-Builder. It is not static and does not remain the same, it is ever-evolving, eternally progressing, and it can be annihilated if that is will of God.

4. Why did you say, “You might ask who is reborn and experience pain and happiness if there is no soul”? It means you are not reading what others have been saying, Daniel already asked that but without the “who is it that experiences pain and happiness” because they are irrelevant, so there is no question of  “might ask.” It has already been asked. And up to now you are unable to answer it. Your analogy of the seed is wrong. A seed may have come from the mother plant, but when a baby plant sprouts from the seed it is a different plant, in the same wat that the child is a different human being from the parents. Both the mother plant and the baby plant can exist at the same time, you will see two or more plants existing side-by-side with the mother plant at the time. But in reincarnation it is the same soul that, upon the death of the physical body, assumes another physical body. You do not see one soul existing in two bodies at the same time. You are confused. The seed sprouting a new plant is, in fact, a good analogy in favor of the independent existence or reality of the individual soul, for as the mother plant is real the baby plants that came from her are also real, and as God is real all the individual souls that emanated from Him are also real.

The prupose of reincarnation is the continued evolution of the soul (though it can also retrogress if it makes the wrong choices). Buddha was only forced to make comments about spiritual matters, he taught philosophy, not religion. People who want to make a religion out of Buddhism interpreted his words within a religious context. Buddha wanted to help people understand themselves, become harmless so as not to contribute in the chaos and violence around them, and to free themselves from illogical and impractical dogmas prevalent in those times. He was not a prophet, his teachings were within the level of mind and materiality only. He did not taught about God because that was not his mission, his was a non-theistic (and not atheistic) dharma. He ridiculed the brahmins for their superstitous beliefs and hypocrisy but he never told them “God does not exist.” Because the subject of God, soul and all other spiritual matters were none of his business. So, to conclude that just because he did not have direct teachings about them means he was implying that they do not exist is completely wrong and illogical.

Present-day Buddhism, including the sect that you represent, is a big cult filled with nonsense dysfunctional teachings. Others are just too nice to tell this to you in your face because you all look so benevolent with your shaved heads and give-me-money costumes. You monks are a burden to society, instead of working and using your God-given talents and intelligence to help advance society you are there studying bullshit inside the monasteries and depending on material provisions donated by others. You have no dignity. You are like domesticated animals waiting for what their masters will feed them. If all of you monks will be software engineers, medical doctors, scientists, etc. while living the Buddha's teachings, and if you will raise familes according to the Buddha's ideals, get into social service, etc. then the world will be a much better place.

 

1. Yes certainly, I can give you more than one authoritative passages where the Buddha taught that there is no soul. In the Anattalakkhana Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya XXII, 59, one of the most important, and hard to grasp, of all all Buddhist teachings is the doctrine of anatta, or “no-self” where Buddha argues for this false idea of soul. Read the following:

On one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Varanasi in the Game Refuge at Isipatana. There he addressed the group of five monks:

'The body, monks, is not self. If the body were the self, this body
would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible (to say) with
regard to the body, “Let my body be thus. Let my body not be thus.”
But precisely because the body is not self, the body lends itself to
dis-ease. And it is not possible (to say) with regard to the body,
“Let my body be thus. Let my body not be thus.”

'Feeling is not self…. Perception is not self…. Mental processes
are not self….

'Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this
consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible
(to say) with regard to consciousness, “Let my consciousness be thus.
Let my consciousness not be thus.” But precisely because
consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease.
And it is not possible (to say) with regard to consciousness, “Let my
consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.”

'How do you construe thus, monks–Is the body constant or inconstant?'
'Inconstant, Lord.' 'And is that which is inconstant easeful or
stressful?' 'Stressful, Lord.' 'And is it fitting to regard what is
inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: “This is mine. This is
my self. This is what I am”?' 'No, Lord.'

'…Is feeling constant or inconstant?…. Is perception constant or
inconstant?…. Are mental processes constant or inconstant?….

'Is consciousness constant or inconstant?' 'Inconstant, Lord.' 'And
is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?' 'Stressful, Lord.'
'And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to
change as: “This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am”?'
'No, Lord.'

'Thus, monks, any body whatsoever–past, future, or present; internal
or external; blatant or subtle, common or sublime, far or near: every
body–is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as:
“This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.”

'Any feeling whatsoever…. Any perception whatsoever…. Any mental
processes whatsoever….

'Any consciousness whatsoever–past, future, or present; internal or
external; blatant or subtle, common or sublime, far or near: every
consciousness–is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment
as: “This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.”

'Seeing thus, the instructed Noble disciple grows disenchanted with
the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception,
disenchanted with mental processes, and disenchanted with
consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through
dispassion, he is released. With release, there is the knowledge,
“Released.” He discerns that, “Birth is depleted, the holy life
fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.”'

That is what the Blessed Onesaid. Glad at heart, the group of five
monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being
given, the hearts of the group of five monks, through no clinging (not
being sustained), were released from the mental effluents.

2. Also, in the Vacchagotta Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya, 44.8, the Buddha Shakyamuni explains to Vacchagotta, what is the cause, what is the reason why other sects hold the following views: The cosmos is eternal' or 'The cosmos is not eternal' or 'The cosmos is finite' or 'The cosmos is infinite' or 'The body is the same as the soul' or 'The body is one thing and the soul another' or 'The Tathagata exists after death' or 'The Tathagata does not exist after death' or 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death” or 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death,' yet when Master Gotama is asked in this way, he does not answer that 'The cosmos is eternal' or 'The cosmos is not eternal' or 'The cosmos is finite' or 'The cosmos is infinite' or 'The body is the same as the soul' or 'The body is one thing and the soul another' or 'The Tathagata exists after death' or 'The Tathagata does not exist after death' or 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death” or 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death'?” Then Buddha replied in the following manner:

“Vaccha, the members of other sects assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

“They assume feeling to be the self…

“They assume perception to be the self…

“They assume fabrications to be the self…

“They assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. That is why, when asked in this way, they answer that 'The cosmos is eternal'… or that 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.'

“But the Tathagata, worthy and rightly self-awakened, does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

“He does not assume feeling to be the self…

“He does not assume perception to be the self…

“He does not assume fabrications to be the self…

“He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. That is why, when asked in this way, he does not answer that 'The cosmos is eternal'… or that 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.'”

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer, getting up from his seat, went to Ven. Maha Moggallana and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he [addressed the same questions to Ven. Maha Moggallana and received exactly the same explanation].

“Amazing, Master Moggallana! Astounding! How the meaning and phrasing of the teacher and disciple agree, coincide, and do not diverge from one another with regard to the supreme teaching! Just now, Master Moggallana, I went to the contemplative Gotama and, on arrival, asked him about this matter, and he answered me with the same words, the same phrasing, as Master Moggallana. Amazing, Master Moggallana! Astounding! How the meaning and phrasing of the teacher and disciple agree, coincide, and do not diverge from one another with regard to the supreme teaching!”

3. Man of the East - you are just like a senseless dog in a hot summer day, who is hateful, angry, stupid, ignorant, proud, corrupted and despiceable, barking all the people it sees on the street. I am wondering if someone is badly bitten by you here and acting the same. You say: free from the interpretations of present-day Buddhism's dogmatic.. and at the same time, you tell me: a certain view or tradition may be thousands of years old and still be wrong. This contradictory nature of your statement proves your own unworthiness and unreliability as a debater, because you don't know where you are standing.

4. By failing to answer my previous question ”Can you give me just one place where Buddha, according to you, never taught soullessness? in another word, taught soul? Give me Just one Canonical evidence where you have found, in other words, Buddha is seen to teach Soulness (atta) in the Suttas, it is pretty clear that you have no knowledge of fundamental doctrines of Buddhism.

5. Where did you get the idea that the soul is static, never dying, never ending, and always the same? Well, it is in the Bhagavad Gita, one of the Hindu texts. There it is clearly stated that Soul is unchanging (is never born and never dies), is indestructible. And it is stupid to think a small soul meets with anther big Soul (brahman).  

6. The Buddha had desires, but his desire for the House-Builder was no more, his craving for the House-Builder ended, because he was looking for Him, the Buddha begged for food taught for his whole life, obviously he still had desires, otherwise he would have just died. You see you yourself are answering here the Buddha's selflessness. How? His craving for the House-builder ended, that's why he did not go back to his pleasurable palace after Buddhahood. He was a prince remember, he could have spent all his life inside the palace enjoying all the delicious foods everyday, enjoyed all the comforts a prince can enjoy, but he realized such attachment only binds to rebirth. Instead after becoming a Buddha, where he was free from all mental desires of comforts, he led a simple life and depended on simple foods on alms around just to maintain the biological body, so that he could continue to help many people to the path to selflessness. So your example of Buddha begging for food because he was holding a soul within him is not a strong arguement to justify your conception of soul. It is simply bogus.

 

1. True Eloquence, you are really hopeless, I went through all the lengthy passages you quoted but there is not even one statement where the Buddha said that the soul does not exist. He said the body is not the self, perception is not the self, thought is not the self, emotion is not the self, consciousness is not the self. That is all correct! But where in those many passages did your very stupid Buddhist head imagined the statement “The soul does not exist”?

In all those passages the Buddha was always talking about “the self,” he says repeatedly, this and that is not “the self.” Those lectures were meant to teach his disciples what is “the self” by pointing out and, hence, eliminating those that are NOT “the self.” If his teaching is that the soul does not exist then he should just have said it straight, but no, he keeps on repeating this and that is not the self, he wanted people to know what is the self. He said the body is not the self, perception is not “the self,” thought is not the self, emotion is not the self, consciousness is not the self. These are all true because the “self” is the soul. You missed the entire point of the teaching. You thought “If all of those things are not the self then there must be no self!” Instead of being challenged and thinking, “If all those things are not the self, what then is the self?”

2. What do you find contradictory with the following lines?

A. “…free from the interpretations of present-day Buddhism's dogmatic..”
B. “… a certain view or tradition may be thousands of years old and still be wrong.”

A. Suggests that you read the scriptures and endeavor to understand them according to your own personal capabilities free from the interpretations of others because, according to B., even if those interpretations came from a tradition that is thousands of years old they can still be wrong.

See? Those are complementary statements that you found to be contradictory. What a horrendous mistake on your part. Who is the bald-headed idiot who taught you (il)logic?

You also lied when you said that I told you both “at the same time.” Those lines came from two distinct sentences, you just joined them together maliciously, and yet you were unable to prove any contradiction but ended up highlighting their consistency.

3. The Gita? The Gita is a chapter within the Mahabharata epic. It is revered by a lot of Hindus but it is an epic, it is mythology. Why would you use mythology as reference for something as important as the nature of the soul? You see, it does not matter how old the Gita is or how many religious people consider it holy (different people consider all sorts of things holy anyway), if you want the truth don't consult mythology. Imagine, your source is mythology and then you go about using it in your arguments like it's some sort of scientific law. It's akin to watching Superman Returns on the cinema and using the story to defend yourself in a court of law. You must learn to separate fact from fiction. For example, this is a fact, “you monks are good-for-nothing parasite burdens to society.” That is a fact. Here is fiction, “you monks are helping the advancement of society and alleviating suffering by staying inside monasteries, engaging in superstitious practices, and studying dysfunctional philosophy until the time of your death.”

 

have to agree with man of the east here, true eloquence. you are the one who claimed that buddha taught soullessness so the burden of proof lies on you. i dont see any teaching of soullessness in these scriptures you quoted. they only say that the self is not the body, the self is not the feelings, and the self is not the perceptions. they do not say there is no self. in fact they seem pretty consistent with what the bhagwad geeta says about the soul.

from ch. 2 of bhagwad geeta,

The soul which is not moved, The soul that with a strong and constant calm takes sorrow and takes joy indifferently, lives in the life undying!

That which is can never cease to be; that which is not will not exist. To see this truth of both is theirs who part essence from accident, substance from shadow.

Indestructible, learn thou! the life is, spreading life through all; It cannot anywhere, by any means, be anywise diminished, stayed, or changed. But for these fleeting frames which it informs with spirit deathless, endless, infinite, they perish. Let them perish, Prince! and fight!

He who shall say, “Lo! I have slain a man!” He who shall think, “Lo! I am slain!” those both know naught! Life cannot slay. Life is not slain! Never the spirit was born; the spirit shall cease to be never; never was time it was not; end and beginning are dreams!

 

Now it is like saying all over again to you guys….let me just clarify the cheap English terms used in the passages. The use of ”Self” or Soul” is a matter of how one translates Atta in English. They are equivant. In the Pali, Buddha says: rupam na atta (the form is not soul/self (atta), vedanam na atta (feeling is not the soul/self), sannam na atta (Perception is not soul/self)…. samkhara na atta (Mental formations are not soul/self)…vinnana na atta (Consciousness is not soul/self). Look carefully, it is so clear that Buddha was tryinig to explain again and again to the disciples that if none of these are soul/self (atta), what is atta? where is atta? there is no atta, atta does not exist.

In this sutta, the Buddha analyzes the constituents of a person's body and mind (khandha) and demonstrates that they are each unfit for identification with a “self” (atta).

It is silly for one who is not even a Buddhist, never studied and practiced Buddhism systematically and holding the view of atta (soul/self) trying to tell and convince a Buddhist who has systematically studied and practiced Buddhism for many years: “you are wrong, this is not the way Buddha taught, Buddha taught atta and so on.” It is like trying to convince a son who has known his father and lived with him most of his life: “you are not his son, your father is another, he did not teach you like this” In fact, this evil person has no proper knowledge of the father at all. He only wants to distract the son, so that he could win favour of leading him away somewhere.

 

Let me tell you what is really, really “silly.” A Buddhis monk who claims that the Buddha taught soullessness all his life and yet struggling completely and pitifully to cite even one passage where the Buddha said “There is no soul.”

The main problem lies within your canonical ancestors' inability to think beyond what was apparent to them. Just because the Buddha supposedly said the form is not the soul, the feelings are not the soul, perception is not the soul, the mind is not the soul, and consciousness is not the soul, your stupid ancestors (as stupid as you are) jumped to the conclusion that there was no soul. Instead of being challenged to realize the soul, which, like God, is transcendental, they have decided to give up on the soul.

It is like an uneducated boy from a mountain village in a third-world country. He have heard about America and how wonderful it is to study and work there. And so, one day he approached a world-travelled man and asked him about America. The man, knowing that the boy have all sorts of preconceived ideas about America, told him “Well,  America is not like that, it is not lke this, and etc.” But instead of being motivated to know first hand what America is like, the boy, with his very simple mind, limited knowledge, and limited experience ended up concluding, “If America is not like everything I thought it should be then there must be no America!” And when he became a father he taught it to his children, “America is a myth! There is no such place!”

I do not really know why you have to explain that atta means self or soul. I have already, repeatedly and frustratingly, asserted that fact. I have said very clearly that “the self” the Buddha was supposedly talking about (which, according to him, was neither this nor that) IS the soul. I even used it in my rationale, one among many, all of which you completely failed to dispute or even understand, that the Buddha was, in effect, explaining what the soul is by enumerating, and thereby eliminating, what it isn't. He did it so that the confusion will go away, and his disciples will stop thinking that the soul is the physical body, its perceptions, the emotions, the mind, or one's consciousness. It was a simple but excellent way to jumpstart anyone in his search for anything spiritual.

You brag about how you “systematically studied and practiced 'Buddhism' for years.” Yes, you may be, technically, a scholar (though of a good-for-nothing subject of study), you were trained to convince people that there is no God and there is no soul, you want to place yourself above God, but a lowly devotee of God defeated you. What good is all your years of education and the many years ahead if you cannot even prove the most fundamental assertions of your “philosophy”? Such an inferior and irrelevant endeavor is not worth spending even a minute of one's time with.

 

To begin with everything, I would like to begin with the Quote of Buddha, where this Blog was initially about. And how I interpret it.:

“Through many a birth I have wandered in samsara, seeking, but never finding, the House-Builder.  It is such a sorrow to take birth again and again. –> looking for something, seamingly a goal.

O House-Builder (shelter builder), THOU art revealed! (I found you, I can show you to others)
THOU shalt not build a house for me again. (You shall not keep me in Samsara (or whatever that means) no more) All Thy rafters are broken. THY ridge-pole is shattered.
(The roof is gone, the walls are still there, but nothing to protect me from rain)
My mind has entered the unconditioned and reached the end of craving.
(I don't make up conditiones any longer to protect myself)

(Btw, Daniel, nice blog post, and personally I regularly speak in metaphors because traditional language doesn't always fit the meaning of the combination of words)


That was about that, now to other posts:
As to traditional interpretations:
If people would interpret Buddha's teachings in the right way. Then wouldn't we all be enlightened by now?
Fact is that at least some crucial parts are not yet rightly comprehended by Dogma. (And that acheiving the same state as buddha begs us to follow a similar path, not just reading parts of knowledge comming out of that path. We can see pictures from a journey, but not have the same understanding of the journey. We need to get there ourselves.) ;)

I never studied the Buddha bloke, Although my residence on this forum brings me close. But as an answer I will use whatever knowledge is available in the given texts. And I must say, that Danials amazement of Buddha's enthusiam is well founded.

Seaminlgy he is a prince. If i were a prince, were to be enlightened and could enjoy life. I wouldn't want to be in a place either. I'd be traveling, looking at the world. Meeting people, helping them. I don't think loss of attachement has anything to do with him residing at a palace. He has a choice, those with a chose will less likely attach themselves.

And as an answer, Buddha names it quiet wisely: 'He does not assume feeling to be the self…, “He does not assume perception to be the self…”, “He does not assume fabrications to be the self…” Not assuming things will make us more receptible to truth. And to what lies ahead. Not assuming things, Can only suprise us, and not dissapoint us. It is our assumptions that make our lives deterministic.
And as science by now knows out of nature. Is not natures way. Nature is not determinstic.
And absolute truth is but a figment of our imagination.

And I really don't see the fuss about this Soul, or Self. Yes it might be fun to discuss but what good does it do? We know knowledge and memories are not permanent. We have been taught that by brain damage and simply forgetting stuff. And even if we have a soul, does that change my life as I live today? It doesn't. Neither will it affect my future.

Life is one big retorical question. It looks like a question, which we could answer with an idefinite right answer. But that answer doesn't really exist. It is the question that holds the wisdom. It is the life we live now, that holds all the wisdom we need to become enlightened.   And buddha did it without all the books about himself. And without other people telling him what to believe (he was a prince, he was free to think). If we follow those guidelines, it worked once so, that it will work again. Perhaps Buddha was just lucky not haveing any religious leader telling him what to believe. And we are lucky that we have the ability to choose whether we will listen to that.

And about the passage. I'd say Buddha discovered that by not makeing up protective conditiones about any of lives aspects. (as being afraid to be outsmarted, or hurt. Or planning for instance to be happy, in literal sence, makeing any form of assumptions of his own future life) He never suffered from downsides either.
Basicly he decided to stop building roofs and enjoy the rain, because we are gone get wet eventually. Beter enjoy it!

 

Daniel,

Was your mind born?  When Jesus said in John 3:5 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Is there a possible esoteric reductionist statement here.  Your brain, your body, your mind are all born in the Indra's Net of dependent origination, maya, dancing illusion.  Even Buddha's mother was queen maya.  Now being averse to Maya, or extremist, is called by Vaishnavas as Mayavadin.  The truth is Buddhists investigate the depths of mind.

What is curious about our bodies is that they are 65% water, and our brains are 80% water, and what do we do when we look for life on Mars but look for that Trinity of H20, father-son of 2 Hydrogen's and Holy Ghost of Oxygen.  So maybe the HOUSE BUILDER is like Jesus said, water and spirit.

Bhagavad Gita 10.3

He who knows Me as the unborn, as the beginningless, as the Supreme Lord of all the worlds—he only, undeluded among men, is freed from all sins.

The Buddhist concept of Nirvana, the highest state attainable is described in the Itivuttaka, one of the books of the Buddhist canon thus:

‘Monks, there is an unborn, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be apparent no escape from this that here is born, become, made, compounded. But, monks, since there is an unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded, therefore the escape from this that here is born, become, made and compounded is apparent.’

In fact in Indonesia's constitution it requires a belief in God, and Indonesia tolerates the Itivuttaka, as an acceptable definition of God.

Wow did Hebrews bash idols, and Islam prohibit images of God or the Prophet, because as an expedient message that, the true realization of Allah, is unborn, begininglessness, endlessness, alpha and omega beyond time & physical constraint.

Now Daniel, your mind, 5 skandhas, is enmeshed in your fleshy brain, which is dependent on many factors and intereractions with environment…it has an interdpendent relationship, or “dependent origination” with Maya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha

Now as an exercise, when Jesus said he was the alpha and omega or beginning and end, can this be fit into your mind (house builder) or does this realization “shatter the beams” with a realization of the…unborn, as the beginningless as the Gita says.


Anyway, great meditation Daniel, keep it up!

 

What do you find contradictory with the following lines? : A. free from the interpretations of present-day Buddhism's dogmatic..” shows your rejection of present day interpretations, whether of yours, mine, and anyones. In the line B. “… a certain view or tradition may be thousands of years old and still be wrong.” shows your rejection of traditional interpretation that is preserved in an unbroken chain of oral and written forms from teachers to disciples. In the first line A, you are rejecting your own interpretation as a present day interpreter. Then in the second line B, you don't trust the tradition. That's why your statements are baseless.

The ”Anattalakkhanasutta” (discourse on the characteristics of the soullessness) itself indicates there is no soul/self. Buddha preached this sutta to the group of 5 disciples, because at the begining they were like you who were holding the soul view.

The doctrine of Anatman enunciated by the Buddha has been a bugbear to the spiritualist, pantheist and monotheist. Do I exist? Did I exist? Shall I exist? Is the Ego different from the body or are they both identical? Do they exist in a permanent form? or do they become extinct? Such kind of speculative questions the Buddha has relegated to the limbo of oblivion. He considered all such questions to be out of court. There is no agnosticism in Buddhism. The truth absolute the Buddha has proclaimed, and that is that absolute Wisdom culminating in the blessedness and peace of Nirvana could be realized in this life in perfect consciousness, without having recourse to the foolish speculation of the whence and whither and the What, am I? Neither a belief in a Creator no the acceptance of a fatalistic determinism, nor the rejection of a future life are considered as essentials for the realization of the perfect state. The metaphysics of religion are unnecessary adjuncts. They are considered fetters, and the essencials of animistic beliefs have to be utterly abandoned. Primitive savages worshipped the wind god, the rain god, the thunder god, the sun god, the water god, and when they became enlightened and knew how to construct houses and protect themselves from ruin and wind and sun, the gods became useless. When Darwin propounded the theory of evolution, the theologians were frightened and they all shouted that Darwin had killed the Creator! The priciple now accepted by the thinking people that nothing is lost, and that cause is rational doctrine: but very few really take it seriously. The old faith is easy and no effort is made to be good and like the man given to alcoholic drink and opium, he clings to it, however pernicious they are for the moral well-being of man. Habit plays an important part in the acceptance and rejection of rational and irrational beliefs. In India, re-marriage of virgin widows is considered a crime, and any effort made to prevent infant marriages is considered an interferece of religion. In European countries countries, beef eating is a necessity, while in India, it is a crime to kill the cow. Asceticism is a form of religious vow in certain religions, but is rejected by the Budda as utterly useless. The belief in an ego (soul/atma) is a fetter that binds man into a heresy of the error. The object of the great Teacher Buddha all beings happy and the principal idea that keeps human beings seperate is the heresy of a permanent ego - personality, cliging to certain sesations and perceptions, and in the desire to have them permanently, foolish efforts are made which end in strife, creating differences between father and son, between brother and brother, between sister and sister, between sister and brother, between mother and daughter. This pernicious doctrine is called in the religon of the Buddha, tanha manaditti; another name for which is ahamkara-mamamkara. As long as this insane idea works in the mind, so long is there no emancipation for him from the fetters of craving desire. The simple question that we have to ask ourselves is, is it advantageous to give pain to another? Monotheistic faiths declare that the Creator having created animals for food, it is our duty to the Creator to give him thanks and kill and eat the animals! This absolutely savage doctrine when carried to its logical conclusions langs us in the domain of cannibalism. The god of the cannibal has declared to him that the flesh of the white man may be eater, and the tiger by the instinct implanted in its animal brain by the Creator seeks its prey in a helpless cow! But man who is the owner of a gun and who believes in a Creator would find no comfort unless he was successful in destroying the tiger! Fatalists believe that whatever happens has been pre-ordained by the Creator and to accept everything with resignation is considered faithfulness to God. Nevertheless, fatalists do make the exertion to realize the consumption of thier cherished desires. The nihilists who reject both theories yet make the exertion to enjoy the materialistic pleasures possible to obtain in this life. Exertion is therefore very material, whatever the belief one may entertain and the one who does not make the endeavour fails to acchieve the desired goal. THis righteous endeavour is called sammappadhana. Exertion to achieve that which would give no happiness to others is called micchavayamo. Delay in exerting to do te right thing is conducive to evil and dependece on others is against the law of development. Each man is the maker of his own destiny and the evil that one does continues to bring unhappiness to the world till its effects are netralised by good deeds. The Buddha by His great illuminating insight discovered this most wonderful doctrine whereby man was given the power to make the effort to realize the goal of perfect freedom. 

 

See? That is why you lost the argument, you have a serious comprehension problem.  This is regarding your explanation of the alleged contradiction of two sentences, which I have proven to be highly complementary instead and without even a hairsplitting hint of your imagined contradiction. It took you two days to come up with a rebuttal to that simple stating of the obvious and it turned out to be ten times more erroneous than all your previous propositions.

The two sentences you insist to be contradictory are:

A. …free from the interpretations of present-day Buddhism's dogmatic and superstitious ancestors.
B. A certain view or tradition may be thousands of years old and still be wrong.

I have already explained that these two statements are complementary, A. I was telling you that it is better to understand the scriptures as is, according to your own personal capability, instead of depending on the interpretations of present-day Buddhism's dogmatic and superstitious ancestors BECAUSE B. even if a certain view or tradition is thousands of years old it can still be wrong. The religious have a tendency to rely on the interpretations of so-called authorities because they think that their interpretations are so old they have passed the test of time and are completely worthy of trust and belief. I was suggesting that, in your case, it is better not to do it.

Where is the contradiction?

Now, in this new invention of yours, before beginning a long and winding essay without even a single passage quoting the Buddha saying “the soul does not exist,” you said I allegedly contradicted myself because A., according to you, means “I am rejecting my own interpretation as a present day interpreter.” Where the hell did you get that? I said, “ …free from the interpretations of present-day Buddhism's dogmatic and superstitious ancestors.” Am I one of present-day Buddhism's ancestors? Do you speak English? It's like you saw a dog and when asked about what you saw you described Popeye the Sailor Man! Are you retarded?

Now I know why you decided to go with the personal interpretations of present-day Buddhism's dogmatic and superstitious ancestors instead of endeavoring to understand them on your own, because you know that on your own you are unable to understand even the most simple sentence.

Now, in this long and winding essay filled with conjectures and stories about why you think you are right, you have again failed to cite even one passage where the Buddha taught that there is no soul. You asked me if I can give you scriptural proof that the Buddha did not teach soullessness but, as the other poster pointed out, since you are the one who claimed that the Buddha taught soullessness in the first place then the burden of proof lies on you, and so I asked you to go right ahead and, as a scholar, come up with even one passage where the Buddha said there is no soul or the soul does not exist, you have been trying for days and up to now you are unable to answer your own challenge. You failed to present even one passage where the Buddha taught that there is no soul.

You have cited Anattalakkhanasutta, who named that sutta Anattalakkhanasutta or “discourse on the characteristics of soullessness”? It was the dogmatic and superstitious ancestors of present-day Buddhism who did the naming, not the Buddha. They named it according to their stupid interpretation of what the Buddha taught. As proof of this where, AGAIN, in this sutta does the Buddha taught that there is no self or soul? NOWHERE! Citing the name of the sutta does not mean anything, specially to someone whose main argument is that the interpretation of the dogmatic and superstitious ancestors of present-day Buddhism are wrong.

Instead of hassling your tutor everyday to help you with the creation of new rebuttals, and failing miserably everyday, why don't you ask him to face me? Better yet ask the highest Buddhist authority in your place to join this virtual environment and be the one to prove to me that the Buddha taught soullessness. You are, to give it to you straight, not yet ready to defend your philosophy. If this is a live debate with a live audience, where you cannot run to your tutor in order to come up with the lousiest most hopeless attempts at rebuttal you will already be so ashamed you would want to kill yourself for butchering the integrity of your branch of Buddhism.

When you are able to answer your own challenge of providing scriptural passages where the Buddha taught soullessness come back here, okay? Or simply admit that there is none. There is nothing embarassing about admitting that you made a mistake, what is embarassing is when it is glaringly obvious to everyone that you are wrong and still you are insisting that you are right. It is like losing a boxing match and trying to steal the championship belt when you're both outside. Tsk tsk tsk… poor boy.

 

Man of the east - you have just described yourself.

 

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. It seems that you're the only one AGAIN who failed to get the point. I was actually describing you, Assaji Tanchangya. I hope that clears it up. If you're struggling with the other points, which most probably is the case, feel free to seek my help.

By the way, where's the passage? Ha ha ha!

 

have you guys heard his music? http://www.myspace.com/sajiwood sounds like a dying cat!

logically impaired and hearing impaired, he seems totally oblivious of the fact that he sucks.

godless and soulless dude badly needs a reality check.

 

True Eloquence / Assaji,

Your music is nice expecially the smiles one.  If the people here are being a bit extreme, part of it is truly Daniel and Man of the East are against more extreme arguments of Anatta.  Do you see that your extreme reaction is just a mirror of this.  And Cosmicmind, thanks for attempting to wake up Assaji.

They are considered fetters, and the essencials of animistic beliefs have to be utterly abandoned. Primitive savages worshipped the wind god, the rain god, the thunder god, the sun god, the water god, and when they became enlightened and knew how to construct houses and protect themselves from ruin and wind and sun, the gods became useless.

Assaji, you are Theravada.  Did Theravada spread Buddhism, or did Mahayana, or even Vajrayana?  Mahayana and Vajrayana made use out of local deities of so called “primitives” because of firm belief that ALL SENTIENT BEINGS have Buddha nature.  This idea of “Primitive Savages” is a dangerous dualism which leads some with asura type natures, even within Buddhism, to create Genocide.

Assaji, there are many blessings you have, having been born in a land of Dharma, Thailand.  But I have a professor friend of mine, who walks a middle path between Zen, Yoga and Theravada, and he said he had many Thai monk students in his class.  Thailand is a country which forbids even youtube videos (at least of certain topics) from being played in their country.  These young monks, even though they in many ways respected their American professor (my friend), said that it is not possible for Americans to become enlightened.

You are a young man, and in someways a mirror of Man of the East, because in fact you are saying that Abbot? or others, are calling you a young genius.

It is a blessing to be intelligent, for you have the capacity to avail of upaya to free others, but also the capacity for harsh speech and impatience.  This discussion has all devolved into harsh speech.

True Eloquence, a great text of Nalanda was…

The Way of the Bodhisattva - Shantideva (Bodhicharyavatara)

and in Tibet (oh, hopefully you don't think Tibetans are savages, like the Chinese do) they made a wonderful secondary practice text, inspired by Shantideva called

37 Practices of a Bodhisattva

This may not be best translation, but….

http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/resources/37_practices_bodhisattva.html

Specifically in your case I point to (2)

(2)
Remaining too long in one place our attraction to loved ones upsets us, we are tossed in its wake.
The flames of our anger towards thus who annoy us consume what good merit we have gained in the past.
The darkness of closed-minded thought dims our outlook, we loose vivid sight of what is right and what is wrong.
We must give up our home and set forth from our country - the Sons of the Buddhas all practise this way.

Assaji, are you too proud to give up Thailand?  Too proud to give up extreme arguments of Anatta, For the benefit of all sentient beings?

Isn't the middle path, beyond all extremes?

Do not be confined to any particular religion, be a human being first - Bhagwan Ram Aghoreshwar

 

Javanese Middle Path on this discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borobodur

There is confusion between Hindu and Buddhist rulers in Java around that time. The Sailendras were known as ardent followers of Lord Buddha, though stone inscriptions found at Sojomerto suggest they may have been Hindus. It was during this time that many Hindu and Buddhist monuments were built on the plains and mountain around the Kedu Plain. The Buddhist monuments, including Borobudur, were erected around the same time as the Hindu Shiva Prambanan temple compound. In 732 AD, the Shivaite King Sanjaya commissioned a Hindu Shiva lingga sanctuary to be built on the Ukir hill, only 10 km (6.2 miles) east of Borobudur.[20]

Construction of Buddhist temples, including Borobudur, at that time was possible because Sanjaya's immediate successor, Rakai Panangkaran, granted his permission to the Buddhist followers to build such temples.[21] In fact, to show his respect, Panangkaran gave the village of Kalasan to the Buddhist community, as is written in the Kalasan Charter dated 778 AD.[21] This has led some archaeologists to believe that there was never serious conflict concerning religion in Java as it was possible for a Hindu king to patronize the establishment of a Buddhist monument; or for a Buddhist king to act likewise.[22] However, it is likely that there were two rival royal dynasties in Java at the time—the Buddhist Sailendra and the Saivite Sanjaya—in which the latter triumphed over their rival in the 856 battle on the Ratubaka plateau.[23] This confusion also exists regarding the Lara Jonggrang temple at the Prambanan complex, which was believed that it was erected by the victor Rakai Pikatan as the Sanjaya dynasty's reply to Borobudur,[23] but others suggest that there was a climate of peaceful coexistence where Sailendra involvement exists in Lara Jonggrang.[24]

Dharma is Dharma, Hindu, Buddhist

Do not be confined to any particular religion, be a human being first

 

Another possible middle path in this discussion, is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta_Prohm

the Temple Ta Prohm, build by the second Mahayana Buddhist Khmer ruler, Jayavarman VII, his predecessors mainly being Hindu Khmers.

A Mahayana Buddhist built a temple for his mom, dedicated to Ta Prohm, or Ancestor Brahma

So Eloquence, does your wisdom exceed the wisdom of Jayavarman VII?  Or like the rest of us, are you just another impermanent opening flower, awakening?

Sorry everyone if so many posts, am attempting to be a peacemakers, I have alot of work to do.

Quite obviously everyone here has great past life karma involving South East Asia.

Bows

 

There is a Zen koan…

the coin lost in the river is found in the river

possibly in the case of this discussion

to atta through anatta

 

You are correct.

In this discussion the reality of the atma became apparent due to a failed presentation of the anatma dogma.

By focusing on the prospect of nonexistence existence became more obvious.

The Buddha was not a religious leader, he never taught religion, he just taught a pure philosophy that has nothing to do with spirituality but has everything to do with morality and how to be happy and content with what you are and what you have in the here and now. It is just his stupid fans who turned his path into a religion complete with heresay dogmas and nonsense rituals (modeled after the rituals of their Hindu predecessors) thereby bastardizing the essense of his life's mission.

It is the misfortune of all master realizers that while they were more than willing to impart everything from their exalted state of awareness their disciples can only receive them from their own bhurloka state of awareness. This reality sums up the history of every major religion and philosophy in the world today.

 

You are correct.

In this discussion the reality of the atma became apparent due to a failed presentation of the anatma dogma.

By focusing on the prospect of nonexistence existence became more obvious.

The earliest Cohenim Blessing (Aaron and Moses) and YHWH (I am that I am) was likely directly imparted from the earliest Hebrews and Kenites (Metalsmiths & Phoenicians with possible origins in India) having been in close proximity.  There is also the fact that the early prophets used Amen, similar to Aum or even Amen-Ra of Egypt, which would indicate that Phoenicians who had a whole quarter in the city of Memphis (mostly as artisans and merchants) also had some ancient tantric like symbolism. 

Shefa Tal, Cohenim Blessing with Y-H-W-H at the wrist
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g233/mogrhod/Shefa_Tal.jpg

What is fascinating about the Cohenim Blessing is both that their are spaces between the fingers (some Yiddish saying is that Hamesh or G-d is the light which shines through the cracks) and that people being blessed by the Rabbi are not supposed to look directly at the hands while this is occuring.

So the Cohenim Blessing can be taken to be similar to By focusing on the prospect of nonexistence existence became more obvious.

This is why in the Abrahamic faiths there is such a strong resistance against “representations” of god, or peasant ideas of idols which would reinforce bhurloka idiocy.

And while I agree with you Daryl at all the nonsense, some of the rituals are in fact “not” nonsense because they provide a context for a sort of “tantric inversion”.  What you are correct about is that the more ancient tantric inversions, let's say a common cremation ground meditation by a secret warrior society (or G. Bush kissing Gernonimo's skull, in the Bonesman ritual) provides a specific tantric inversion, say to overcome fear.

The fact is if you took time to meet a good cross section of Lamas, or heard them speak, you would immediately sense either their spacious like quality of mind (Satyaloka) or even siddhi, or even an omniscience (which is creepy for those purely Bhurloka, and egos often freak at this).  There is nothing which really needs to be changed, after enlightenment if Catholic Mass still exists, no problem?  The habits will wear off naturally and evolutionarily?

As you are well aware (although you have not read the Vimalakirti Sutra in full, I assume) upaya or expedient means are completely free and can use so called Bhurloka realm to crack open small mindedness.  For example, Zen koans purpose is to exhaust the rational mind, and endless banana peel, until in the patients own frame of reference they see totality.  It is actually neuroscience the linear left hemisphere of brain (shiva) giving way to the holistic right hemisphere of brain (shakti).

Taking By focusing on the prospect of nonexistence existence became more obvious.

One could even use this example by the Atheist Astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson, to explain “anatta to atta” or “neti neti mantra” and how it may apply to what Jesus said “on earth as it is in heaven” or that double headed vajra symbol representing “nirvana AND samsara” mirroring one another.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nry6mUhTzc0

Man of the East, 100% certain you have siddhi (not something you “have” but…), and you have a system of techniques which progressivly deal with subtle levels, which if you really looked at Lam Rim, you could see the beauty of this system (remember Mind Training came from Atisha's teacher in SUMATRA, east).  How come you don't have faith this will come all together on it's own in an evolutionary fashion?  That you deny that there are buddhas even now on earth, or “helpful” folks, really shows a lack of faith.

In some ways if you read the shattering clarity of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, who is a super genius who thinks Dalai Lama isn't breaking open west fast enough, you would likely see that “he” sees the same dire situation as you.  Although weirdly he has kinda made Buddha theistic, anyway, tangent.

Do you agree with Yogananda, or not, that “Jesus returning” will be the mass cultivation of self-realization and us getting there, or do you believe YOUR ROLE is GREATER THAN THE GOAL?

Anyway, I love that Neil Degrasse Tyson video, it's almost an atheist explaining what God is about, in the same way Buddhism is only an extension of Hinduism and showing how beautiful it is too.

Anyway, damn it, useless f**king philosophy, I think if we were going opposite directions in tricycles on a hot day in the Philippines and flipped each other off as we passed, we'd both know we get it.  (Did I learn this approach from you?)

Bows

Your friend ALWAYS in Dharma

 

That is a good question. Is the return of the Christ, or the descent of the Kalki Avatara, or the coming of the Maitreya, or Saoshyant, or the Imam Mahdi, etc. merely referring to a significant increase of enlightened people in the planet? It hink that is an overkill interpretation. In the same way that your cross-referencing of the history and practices of religious and philosophical traditions, lores and mythology are, most of the time, a product of your own creativity and clamour to connect everything in more solid ways other than merely ecological. Some of your conclusions have basis, of course (Hindu, Buddhist, Jain paths are closely tied-up, and Jewish, Christian and Islamic paths are closely tied-up), but some are just, for the lack of a better word, flat out “whack.”

I don't think it's disrespectful to Yogananda to peacefully disagree with a number of his published conclusions (actually, I believe that most of Yogananda's teachings are wrong), but in reality it is not only him who holds this theory of the so-called “second coming” of mass “Christ” consciousness, contemporary philosophers, specially those of the “Integral” (proper noun) persuasion, also believe and teach this, and so when I say that I disagree with it I am not only disagreeing with one particular person, whom I truly respect, but to a widely-held notion that has already become some sort of a dogma.

We shouls realize that when Jesus said that he will come again it was not in symbolic language or parable, he does not speak in parables with his inner mandalis. The same is true with the long-awaited messianic beings of other traditions. It could all be the same person, or different persons that would form a group, but they were certainly not referring to mass consciousness (not yet). The elevation of mass consciousness will of course occur, but the prophecied massih is, without a doubt, a singular human being, a messenger of God. And he will be the catalyst for the enlightenment of a critical mass. That is the context.

You see, since we are talking about the second coming of the Christ, let us be biblical for a while, I mean just to probe the dynamics of the idea because that is the book where this particular belief came from. The Prophet Malachi (4:5&6) prophecied of the coming of Elias (in the New Testament the name has been anglicized as “Elijah”), it was short but so complete a prophecy that the timing was predicted, what he would actually do was predicted, etc. Now, we all know that this second coming of Elias was fulfilled in John the Baptist (Luke 1:13-17, Matthew 17:13). It became fulfilled in him not because he was the reincarnation of Elias but because he was the one who accomplished the prophecied mission of the coming Elias including the mission of being the forerunner for the main teacher of that dispensation, Jesus.

There we can see one example of how biblical prophecy regarding a supposedly arriving messenger works. The person is still a person, no transmutation into a completely different meaning or representation (which is really quite an imaginative twist), but he does not neessarily have to be the same soul. He (or, for those with feministic inclincations, “she”) only needs to enact the mission, to play the role. So, what Vyasa actually meant when he said, through the character Krishna, that everytime there is a great crisis in faith, decline in morality, violence, etc. God HimSelf would come again and again to bring everything back into working order (paritranaya sadhunam vinasaya ca duskrtam dharma-samsthapanarthaya sambhavami yuge yuge) he only meant that there will always be someone “sent” to enact God's will and lead the people. This is basically the same message of assurance conveyed in the Bible.