Self vs Soul

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Re: Self vs Soul

Postby arijitmitter » Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:36 pm

Jason wrote:
That only holds true for circles drawn on a flat surface, not warped space. A circle drawn on a sphere, for example, with have a shorter circumference than one drawn on a flat sheet, and one drawn on the surface of a saddle will have a longer circumference even though they all have the same radius (e.g., see The Elegant Universe, pp 64-65).


Any Universe will need to have at least 2 - 3 dimensions. As long as you have 2 dimensions you can draw a circle. As long as you can draw a circle you have C = 2 pi * R. It is irrefutable. Have it checked by your nearest astro physicist. Disprove me in the simpler question - any 2 dimensional circle has length of circumference 2 pi * r and it is eternal truth [ before going to 3 dimensions ]

Jason wrote:
That's not necessarily true. A new universe could theoretically have entirely different laws and constants.


A ) Then if a new Universe could have new laws and constants it will not have a circle ? Note: I carefully avoided saying electron charge will be constant since a new Universe could have separate particles. 2 and 3 dimensional geometry is constant.

B ) If a new Universe has new laws then Nibbana may not be eternal just as 2 pi * R according to you is not eternal. A new Universe could have new laws of Kamma

:namaste: Arijit
arijitmitter
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Self vs Soul

Postby Martin Po » Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:54 pm

Arijit, why you lie? when beeing asked:
- why do you need a soul?
you answer:
-i don't need a soul it's my sister's question.

But reading yours replies, argumentation, grasping to the view, it is evident that you need some soul.
Can i ask you a second time:
- Why do you need a soul? Having a soul for what doing?
Martin Po
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:41 am

Re: Self vs Soul

Postby arijitmitter » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:05 pm

Martin wrote:
Arijit, why you lie? when beeing asked:
- why do you need a soul?
you answer:
-i don't need a soul it's my sister's question.

But reading yours replies, argumentation, grasping to the view, it is evident that you need some soul.
Can i ask you a second time:
- Why do you need a soul? Having a soul for what doing?


The question began with my sister asking me on Saturday [ see OP ] what is the difference between Self [ as given in Buddhism ] and Soul [ as usually understood ]. At that time 48 hours back [ as I have said consistently ] I used to believe that Buddha had meant anatta is becoming ego less [ I am ugly, I am rich, I am poor ] and to let go of " I " and " Mine " [ read previous posts ]. Yesterday evening [ Indian time ] I was convinced by 10 PM I was wrong and Buddha meant no soul and I had previously misunderstood him [ I studied deep into the night and by dawn I agreed that what all of you had quoted that he did not mean non ego but non soul was true ]

Through today I have been thinking what is an eternal truth and if there is any other example. And yes there are many of which the most obvious is pi or 22 /7.

Where does this entire thread have a lie ? If you and I are both police detectives and you convince me Jeremy has committed a murder when I thought Rupert has and I go home and think for a day and come up to you with a doubt that Jeremy might be innocent, is that lying ?

The question has now gone far beyond if I want a soul; I am asking about the very fundamental. Buddha said Nibbana is the only Eternal Truth. Rest are illusions of human mind. But pi is a fact of nature deduced by human mind. So we have at least 2 Eternal Truths - Nibbana and pi.

What is to say there are not more out there ? And maybe soul is one of them.

:namaste: Arijit
arijitmitter
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Self vs Soul

Postby reflection » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:29 pm

arijitmitter wrote:As far as I understand Buddha said nothing is permanent except Nibbana. He is silent about knowledge. Is knowledge eternal ?

Such as go to any corner of the Universe and it holds true that perimeter of a circle [ circumference ] holds to it's diameter a constant ratio 22 / 7.
Even if there is a new Universe that will hold true. It is a small example of eternal truth. There are many more.

So Buddha's assertion that what originates in the mind from vedana, sanna, cetana, phasso, manasikaro is impermanent does not hold true. And that is a very big " does not hold true ".

Therefore I personally have decided that I will accept the moral structure, 4 Noble Truths and 8 Fold Path and in general his observations about the human condition but I will not accept the Pali Canon or entire Buddhism as truth. To a lay rationalist like me who is not very learned it failed a test with few hours of thought. A trained and well educated rationalist can find perhaps bigger gaps in his teachings.

If C = 2 pi * R is eternal and it was something which occurred in nature but was deduced by human mind - other facts believed by human mind about nature such as existence of soul can be eternal as well [ along with Nibbana ].

Thankfully concept of blasphemy does not occur in Buddhism.

:namaste: Arijit

Nothing is permanent except nibbana. But your problem lies with interpreting the word "nothing". When saying nothing we mean no-thing as in, no touchable thing, imaginable thing, no created thing, activity, or "sankhara" in pali. But a formula in its most abstract sense is no such a thing, not a sankhara. It is a relation. And the Buddha didn't say that relations were impermanent. For example, the relation between craving leading to suffering is eternal. It will be like that always. Or that hate will never conquer hate, is literally called "eternal law" in the Dhammapada. So you have to make this distinction between laws, or relations and the things these laws act upon.

:anjali:
Last edited by reflection on Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
reflection
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Self vs Soul

Postby acinteyyo » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:31 pm

Hi arijitmitter,

concepts aren't truths. A concept may be true or false according to the given frame of reference. Maths and its laws are concepts not truths. Thinking and ideas are concepts, not truths. The 4 noble truths are not truths per se. They're also concepts. What is the truth in them, is the reality indicated by them, what can be seen and known directly by oneself. Not the words, terms and concepts but experience.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Both formerly, monks, and now, it is just suffering that I make known and the ending of suffering.
Pathabyā ekarajjena, saggassa gamanena vā sabbalokādhipaccena, sotāpattiphalaṃ varaṃ. (Dhp 178)
Sole dominion over the earth, going to heaven or lordship over all worlds: the fruit of stream-entry excels them.

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: Self vs Soul

Postby arijitmitter » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:43 pm

reflection wrote:
Nothing is permanent except nibbana. But your problem lies with interpreting the word "nothing". When saying nothing we mean no-thing as in, no touchable thing, imaginable thing, no created thing, activity, or "sankhara" in pali.


Buddha categorically stated nothing that evolves from human mind is an Eternal Truth except the Four Noble Truths. He categorically stated that mind of an entity swimming in vedana, sanna, cetana, vinnana, manasikaro cannot give birth to an Eternal Truth. But pi is an Eternal Truth. And Greek mathematicians had not achieved Nibbana or did not at least formally arrive at Four Noble Truths [ such as even before you heard of Buddha's teaching you knew that craving causes pain but you had not formally stated it in a doctrine ]

acinteyyo wrote:
concepts aren't truths. A concept may be true or false according to the given frame of reference. Maths and its laws are concepts not truths.


Math is a concept ? Every word of it is truth inside the confines of this Universe and at very least one of it's constituents pi is an Eternal Truth wherever a Universe is formed if that Universe has a length and width. Now please do not argue there will be an Universe with only one dimension since it is not possible. Only length cannot exist.

As I have said I accept his moral precepts and his instructions of how to lead a proper life. But I cannot take any other part of the teaching at face value. He insisted that there is only one truth - path of Nibbana. We now have two. How do you know there are not more ?

:namaste: Arijit
arijitmitter
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Self vs Soul

Postby Martin Po » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:47 pm

arijitmitter wrote:
The question began with my sister asking me on Saturday [ see OP ] what is the difference between Self [ as given in Buddhism ] and Soul [ as usually understood ]. At that time 48 hours back [ as I have said consistently ] I used to believe that Buddha had meant anatta is becoming ego less [ I am ugly, I am rich, I am poor ] and to let go of " I " and " Mine " [ read previous posts ]. Yesterday evening [ Indian time ] I was convinced by 10 PM I was wrong and Buddha meant no soul and I had previously misunderstood him [ I studied deep into the night and by dawn I agreed that what all of you had quoted that he did not mean non ego but non soul was true ]

Through today I have been thinking what is an eternal truth and if there is any other example. And yes there are many of which the most obvious is pi or 22 /7.

Where does this entire thread have a lie ? If you and I are both police detectives and you convince me Jeremy has committed a murder when I thought Rupert has and I go home and think for a day and come up to you with a doubt that Jeremy might be innocent, is that lying ?

The question has now gone far beyond if I want a soul; I am asking about the very fundamental. Buddha said Nibbana is the only Eternal Truth. Rest are illusions of human mind. But pi is a fact of nature deduced by human mind. So we have at least 2 Eternal Truths - Nibbana and pi.

What is to say there are not more out there ? And maybe soul is one of them.

:namaste: Arijit


Do you belief in self/soul?

PS: Pi is depend on Zero, there is no numbers without zero. There is no Pi without a circle. Pi is not eternal.
Martin Po
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:41 am

Re: Self vs Soul

Postby arijitmitter » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:54 pm

Martin wrote:
PS: Pi is depend on Zero, there is no numbers without zero. There is no Pi without a circle. Pi is not eternal.

Pi is not eternal constant ? After this I really do not have anything to say. Pi is eternal in this and in any other Universe. When you have 2 dimensions a circle can be formed and the perimeter of that circle will have a ratio of 22/ 7 with the diameter of that circle.

:namaste: Arijit
arijitmitter
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Self vs Soul

Postby acinteyyo » Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:18 pm

arijitmitter wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:
concepts aren't truths. A concept may be true or false according to the given frame of reference. Maths and its laws are concepts not truths.

Math is a concept ? Every word of it is truth inside the confines of this Universe and at very least one of it's constituents pi is an Eternal Truth wherever a Universe is formed if that Universe has a length and width. Now please do not argue there will be an Universe with only one dimension since it is not possible. Only length cannot exist.

Yes, maths is a mere concept. Not a single word of it is a truth. A term may be true or false according to circumstances but you have to understand how science works. Science generally is nothing else but a description of some kind of order which has been observed. The experience of a phenomena, that observation is reality. This is what is true. Maths is nothing else but conception, description of that which is true but the description itself is not a reality, not a truth, its only a description. "Pi" is not a truths but rather a mere description of a geometric figure commonly called "circle". Because of the laws of maths, which were set by humans, not by nature btw, the number "pi" is the way it is. If I change the frame of reference and decide that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is now 1, then mathematically everything with respect to that geometric figure changes. But what doesn't change at all is how a circle is experienced. It'll still be perceived as "circular". This is what is real, not the description of a phenomena called "circle" in the language of maths.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Both formerly, monks, and now, it is just suffering that I make known and the ending of suffering.
Pathabyā ekarajjena, saggassa gamanena vā sabbalokādhipaccena, sotāpattiphalaṃ varaṃ. (Dhp 178)
Sole dominion over the earth, going to heaven or lordship over all worlds: the fruit of stream-entry excels them.

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: Self vs Soul

Postby reflection » Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:24 pm

arijitmitter wrote:
reflection wrote:
Nothing is permanent except nibbana. But your problem lies with interpreting the word "nothing". When saying nothing we mean no-thing as in, no touchable thing, imaginable thing, no created thing, activity, or "sankhara" in pali.


Buddha categorically stated nothing that evolves from human mind is an Eternal Truth except the Four Noble Truths. He categorically stated that mind of an entity swimming in vedana, sanna, cetana, vinnana, manasikaro cannot give birth to an Eternal Truth. But pi is an Eternal Truth. And Greek mathematicians had not achieved Nibbana or did not at least formally arrive at Four Noble Truths [ such as even before you heard of Buddha's teaching you knew that craving causes pain but you had not formally stated it in a doctrine ]

So now suddenly the relationship of the circle evolved from the human mind? I thought it was your opinion that it was a property of nature. (the latter of which I would agree with)

Either way if you can give some sources for what you attribute to the Buddha, that could help. I never came across such statements.

And let's be careful not to again go into arguing the simile instead of the argument.
User avatar
reflection
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Self vs Soul

Postby Martin Po » Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:58 pm

arijitmitter wrote:
Martin wrote:
PS: Pi is depend on Zero, there is no numbers without zero. There is no Pi without a circle. Pi is not eternal.

Pi is not eternal constant ? After this I really do not have anything to say. Pi is eternal in this and in any other Universe. When you have 2 dimensions a circle can be formed and the perimeter of that circle will have a ratio of 22/ 7 with the diameter of that circle.

:namaste: Arijit


I wish you not suffer from your belief on self/soul, and from your belief on Pi.

With compassion.
Martin Po
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:41 am

Re: Self vs Soul

Postby santa100 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:35 pm

arijitmitter wrote:Math is a concept ? Every word of it is truth inside the confines of this Universe and at very least one of it's constituents pi is an Eternal Truth wherever a Universe is formed if that Universe has a length and width. Now please do not argue there will be an Universe with only one dimension since it is not possible. Only length cannot exist


I think you've solved the issue by yourself. A truth that's bound within the confine of a scope is only a conventional truth, not an eternal truth. Actually, Mathematical concepts (including PI) don't even work within the confine of our Universe. There're regions in our universe like black holes where scientists are still struggling to identify the exact their number of dimensions, whether the number is integer or even fractional.. All we know for now is that the math breaks down when they're trying to unify the 2 great theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity, both using the same set of physical constants. And then going back in time, we have no clue what the universe was like BEFORE the Big Bang. Like Alan Guth put it: "classic Big Bang theory says nothing about what banged, what happened before it banged, or what caused it to bang". So if a truth doesn't hold true anywhere (black hole regions) nor anytime (before the Big Bang) then it's at best a conventional truth, not an eternal truth..
santa100
 
Posts: 1522
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Self vs Soul

Postby acinteyyo » Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:46 pm

:goodpost:
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Both formerly, monks, and now, it is just suffering that I make known and the ending of suffering.
Pathabyā ekarajjena, saggassa gamanena vā sabbalokādhipaccena, sotāpattiphalaṃ varaṃ. (Dhp 178)
Sole dominion over the earth, going to heaven or lordship over all worlds: the fruit of stream-entry excels them.

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: Self vs Soul

Postby Holdan » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:53 pm

arijitmitter wrote:As far as I understand Buddha said nothing is permanent except Nibbana. He is silent about knowledge. Is knowledge eternal ?

Such as go to any corner of the Universe and it holds true that perimeter of a circle [ circumference ] holds to it's diameter a constant ratio 22 / 7.
Even if there is a new Universe that will hold true. It is a small example of eternal truth. There are many more.

The scriptures do explicitly state Nibbana is permanent. Although the scriptures do not explicitly state other things are permanent, other things can be deduced to be permanent, as some Buddhist teachers explain to be permanent. These other permanent things are the laws or truths of dhamma (dhamma niyama): the
(i) conditionality process (cause & effect), (ii) impermanence, & (ii) dukkhaness of conditioned things and the (iv) not-self of all things. The scriptures state:

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality. The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, makes it plain.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant.

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are dukkha.

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

In other words, that the conditioned universe is subject to causes & effect, impermanence, cannot bring permanent happiness & is not-self is a permanent reality (as long as the universe continues to exist). If the laws of dhamma are permanent then, although unrelated to the goal of Buddhism, the laws of physics, chemistry, etc, are probably permanent, in a fundamental sense.
Last edited by Holdan on Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Holdan
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 8:29 pm

Re: Self vs Soul

Postby reflection » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:59 pm

Since when do we have to introduce physics when talking about maths? The two are very different subjects. Math in itself is totally uncaring for black holes or quantum physics or what have you. And it does not fall apart because it based on logical deduction, unlike physics which is based mostly on observation.

So saying you can redefine the relationship of a circles circumference to its radius is like saying you can redefine "1=2". Sure, go ahead and do it but it is totally nonsensical. If anybody would say that math is not-constant or "just a concept" then even basic logic is just a concept (however you would like to define concept, but here it apparently means it is not always the same). So whatever they may put forward to support their view thereby could be turned around just like '1=2'. Because apparently I can redefine the logic however I would like. So either way, I'm right. :tongue:

Is this about the thread still? No, but just wanted to give arijitmitter a support.

:anjali:
User avatar
reflection
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Self vs Soul

Postby Martin Po » Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:19 pm

Somethink permanent is stable.
Somethink impermanent is instable.

Instable slant and slope toward stable.
Like a planet slant and slope toward the star.
Like a star slant and slope toward the black whole.

Uncreated have absolute stability, two permanent dhammas - it's impossible.
Martin Po
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:41 am

Re: Self vs Soul

Postby Jason » Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:48 pm

arijitmitter wrote:
Jason wrote:
That only holds true for circles drawn on a flat surface, not warped space. A circle drawn on a sphere, for example, with have a shorter circumference than one drawn on a flat sheet, and one drawn on the surface of a saddle will have a longer circumference even though they all have the same radius (e.g., see The Elegant Universe, pp 64-65).


Any Universe will need to have at least 2 - 3 dimensions. As long as you have 2 dimensions you can draw a circle. As long as you can draw a circle you have C = 2 pi * R. It is irrefutable. Have it checked by your nearest astro physicist. Disprove me in the simpler question - any 2 dimensional circle has length of circumference 2 pi * r and it is eternal truth [ before going to 3 dimensions ]


That may very well be true; but then, the foundation of mathematics is a murky subject. Betrand Russell, for example, found this out while trying to discern the logical foundation of mathematics. The scope and definition of mathematics are still a debated topic today. That said, it's entirely possible that these things are constant and not dependent upon any conditions whatsoever — i.e., that they're some kind of eternal truths — but I'm not presently convinced of that (although I do think you're making a fairly good case for them being so). Moreover, assuming that these things are universal laws or truths, then I think they could easily fall under an expanded scope of what the commentarial tradition of Theravada calls dhamma-niyamas, universal, dhammic laws (e.g., the three characteristics).

arijitmitter wrote:
Jason wrote:
That's not necessarily true. A new universe could theoretically have entirely different laws and constants.


A ) Then if a new Universe could have new laws and constants it will not have a circle ? Note: I carefully avoided saying electron charge will be constant since a new Universe could have separate particles. 2 and 3 dimensional geometry is constant.

B ) If a new Universe has new laws then Nibbana may not be eternal just as 2 pi * R according to you is not eternal. A new Universe could have new laws of Kamma

:namaste: Arijit


I honestly have no idea what a universe radically different from our own would or wouldn't have. My only point above is that even things like the circumference of a circle is relative and dependent upon context. Three circles with the exact same radius can have complete different circumferences. What applies to a circle drawn on a flat surface doesn't apply to all circles, and who knows what would apply in the context of a black hole or pre-Big Bang. Conventionally speaking, I'd say that things like certain equations and universal phenomena do appear to be constant; but I'm not so sure they're constant in an ultimate sense since they depend upon things like time and space, something which nibbana (depending on how you interpret it) doesn't.

If we take nibbana as being an existing reality or state from an ontological standpoint, as some interpret it to be, for example, then nibbana, being unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated, unconditioned, uncompounded, etc. (Ud 8.3), is something which lies outside of space and time. As such, it is, by its very nature, characterized by constancy in the ultimate sense of the term (nicca), regardless of what universal laws exist, since anything unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated, unconditioned, uncompounded, etc. and lying outside of space and time can be characterized by constancy in any context as it remains unaffected by anything phenomenal, i.e., nibbana in this sense doesn't depend on the existence or non-existence of a universe, and can be said to be constant in a truly ultimate sense.

But this, I think, while interesting to contemplate, takes the Buddha's teachings out of context and their intended purpose. Personally, I view Buddhism as a type of process philosophy. The Buddha isn't trying to prove or disprove the ultimate existence of mathematic formulas; he's trying to get us to look at our experience in a way that helps us understand mental stress and suffering and removing its causes. From this perspective, nibbana is better understood as a self-realization that's constant or permanent.

What I mean by that is awaking, the experience of nibbana, in the Buddhist context isn't simply a meditative state that one only experiences while in meditation that goes away during normal everyday life (such as was the case with the Buddha's first two teachers, who mistook the third and fourth arupa jhanas as awakening). This 'liberation of mind' (cetovimutti), as the Buddha occasionally calls it, on the other hand, is said to be unshakable, total, and permanent in the sense that an arahant achieves irreversible release — i.e., complete eradication of the mental defilements of greed, hatred, and delusion — and can never fall back to a lower stage. It's also said (at least in the commentarial tradition of Theravada, at any rate) that they experience uninterrupted happiness/bliss (sukha) for as long as their five sense faculties still remain as a result of awakening. For one reference, see "Nibbana as Living Experience" by Lily de Silva.

What that means for an arahant after death, or whether nibbana is indeed an independent reality or state, though, I can't say since such things lie beyond the range of language and my own understanding. In addition, I'm currently at an airport waiting for a flight, so I can't really give this discussion the full attention it deserves, although I'm certainly enjoying it and looking forward to seeing how it evolves.
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).

leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
User avatar
Jason
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:09 am
Location: Earth

Re: Self vs Soul

Postby arijitmitter » Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:27 pm

Jason wrote:
The Buddha isn't trying to prove or disprove the ultimate existence of mathematic formulas; he's trying to get us to look at our experience in a way that helps us understand mental stress and suffering and removing its causes. From this perspective, nibbana is better understood as a self-realization that's constant or permanent.


My attitude for last few hours exactly. I will follow the Four Noble Truths and Eight Fold Path. I will believe that almost everything that comes out of human mind [ which is a slave to feelings, perception, consciousness ] is false and illusory. However I will not accept 100 % of his teachings. Only 99 %. And there is no wrong in that. Many Buddhists do not believe in rebirth. Similarly I will believe [ perhaps wrongly in opinion of all of you ] to take Anatta as striving to ego less state [ be relieved of " I " and " Mine " ] and not disbelieve in a passive, attributeless soul [ be that of a cockroach or a human - something that keeps the flame of life alive and is not present in a dead being ].

I believe human mind is ever changing. If I believe in a soul and continue study of Buddhism, with that and meditation perhaps a time will come when I will no longer believe in the soul. As Buddha said many times - do not believe me, do it yourself and see.

Such as a person starting Buddhism who is very addicted to eating hamburgers might find it difficult to give up consumption of meat, but after 5 years he may himself want to give it up. I do not deny that the belief in soul maybe a fetter for me. But one cannot tear every fetter away by force. Some have to fall away naturally.

reflection wrote:
So now suddenly the relationship of the circle evolved from the human mind? I thought it was your opinion that it was a property of nature.


Read carefully what I wrote

arijitmitter wrote:
So Buddha's assertion that what originates in the mind from vedana, sanna, cetana, phasso, manasikaro is impermanent does not hold true.
...........
If C = 2 pi * R is eternal and it was something which occurred in nature but was deduced by human mind - other facts believed by human mind about nature such as existence of soul can be eternal as well [ along with Nibbana ].


I hope this discussion has not made me an outcast.

:namaste: Arijit
arijitmitter
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Self vs Soul

Postby pegembara » Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:59 am

arijitmitter wrote:Math is a concept ? Every word of it is truth inside the confines of this Universe and at very least one of it's constituents pi is an Eternal Truth wherever a Universe is formed if that Universe has a length and width. Now please do not argue there will be an Universe with only one dimension since it is not possible. Only length cannot exist


How do we know about the universe if not through our senses? But the Buddha pointed out the the truth is not out there but within. The scientists are like Rohitassa, always looking for answers out there.

I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
pegembara
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Self vs Soul

Postby clw_uk » Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:58 pm

arijitmitter wrote:I could not answer a question my sister asked me yesterday. What is the difference between the Self and Soul. Her question was Non Self anattā ( Pali ) anātman ( Sanskrit ) already contains the word attā and anattā is negation of attā which is accurately translated as soul



Nothing they are both the same and both come from the same place, namely clinging to the aggregates

When there is clinging there is a notion of "I am", we create and identity around that to which we cling to and view it as permanent, calling it self or soul

We then go on to make theories about that to which we cling, saying it either lives on after death for ever... or is annihilated at death and is met with oblivion etc

or that it is beautiful, or ugly etc
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests