thoughts on buddhists' denial of the soul / brahman?

[emil1234]

ive been researching this quite thoroughly lately, since it presents a contradiction to my current views of reality. all of my mystical experiences have been pointing towards Brahman, and ive even experienced a telepathic interaction through the universal consciousness, so from personal experience i am more or less convinced of the existence of brahman / universal consciousness.

however buddhists claim to go the notch further, that brahman is NOT the ultimate realization, thats its possible to transcend it, and in doing so realizing the untruth of brahman

Now I know that original buddhism did NOT teach any negation of the soul, and the later scripts of buddhism such as theravada (which do actively deny the existence of an eternal soul) are based on apperant faulty interpretation of the original scriptures.

however i cannot easily dismiss this, since people like frank yang and daniel ingram claim that it is possible to actually transcend the universal consciousness.

what are your thoughts on this? philosophically the theravadian / ingram / frank yang metaphysics sound like near nonsense to me, however they claim that the realization of "No-Self" or anatman is deeper than god realization / brahman.

i recently saw leo commenting on this, claiming that ascribing "levels" to realizations above infinity is nonsense, since infinity by definition has to include everything, which i think makes good sense

Edited March 22, 2024 by emil1234

[Javfly33]

Make sense, imo universal consciousness is Still ego Dreaming or a projection of the Mind.

Is not that is false, is that is still projection. Not real You. Consciousness is Still Mind/phenomena/experience/subtler physicality.

Non physical existence is beyond everything that appears.

Ime, Truth is boundless Empty non-existence.

 

I dont get What you said in the last paragraph Though. If you can clear that Up.

[emil1234]

@Javfly33 i simply meant that its nonsense to say that a realization can be "higher" or deeper, at a higher lvl than brahman or god / infinity, because infinity has to include everything, including all levels which could be said to be deeper or higher, which is what some buddhists talk about

[Hojo]

My understanding is reality is Brahman

Shiva is the void

Brahman is reality pretending to be Shiva Shiva is pretending to be you in Brahman.

Edited March 22, 2024 by Hojo

[emil1234]

@Hojo yes this is basically my understanding as well. however i think some buddhists would disagree with this, which puzzles me

[Yimpa]

1 minute ago, emil1234 said:

however i think some buddhists would disagree with this, which puzzles me

Two human beings disagreeing with each other should come as no surprise.

[Javfly33]

2 hours ago, emil1234 said:

@Javfly33 i simply meant that its nonsense to say that a realization can be "higher" or deeper, at a higher lvl than brahman or god / infinity, because infinity has to include everything, including all levels which could be said to be deeper or higher, which is what some buddhists talk about

by that logic a dog´s shit is the same as reading book 

[Breakingthewall]

It's like reality has two faces, one is total emptiness, and it is absolute, and the other is the cosmos and its eternal cycles, and it is also absolute, but really, the cosmos is an illusion of emptiness. It is always there, but really what it is is emptiness. What you are in the end is the void, not the form, the forms are like holograms in the void. The attachment to the form is very difficult to let it go, but I think that real awakening is to perceive that all forms are the same, and be open to it

[BipolarGrowth]

4 hours ago, emil1234 said:

Now I know that original buddhism did NOT teach any negation of the soul, and the later scripts of buddhism such as theravada (which do actively deny the existence of an eternal soul) are based on apperant faulty interpretation of the original scriptures.

Where did you find this? I’d be quite interested to see the source for this claim. Keep in mind that Buddhism was originally an oral tradition for a long period of time, so those who claim to know precisely what the Buddha taught are on shaky ground. The Theravadins love to speak that way. 
 

I personally like to view the interpretations of modern Buddhism by their own merit rather than counting them as valuable based on whether the teachings were exactly what the Buddha taught. On that note, I’ve found the idea and practice of anattā quite valuable in my path. A few years ago, I was attached to the idea, experience, and practice of consciousness being absolute and highly valued teachings about Atman/Brahman. Nowadays, it certainly feels like realizing anattā to different degrees is a further evolution beyond the position of putting Atman/Brahman on a pedestal. I’d say that identification with a Self of any sort is not the highest realization. Ideally, practices more focused on the Atman/Brahman side of things can essentially take you just as far as seeing anattā, but the issue is that if the view of a real self is held onto too closely, you run into issues of attachment and clinging which can cause resistance to “the Truth/the Highest/the deepest realization”. 
 

I know that what I’m about to say now will go against the belief of many here, but my path has shown me that Consciousness as people typically view it is not absolute. This gets into murky territory as far as descriptions go, but Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism all teach of something beyond the experiential realm people typically refer to as Consciousness when it is seen as absolute. I first ran into this on an unexpected awakening experience in the summer of 2021. This is what Daniel Ingram and Frank Yang call “cessation.” 
 

There are many different views and interpretations of cessation, but one of the most important things I learned immediately upon reaching that “state/non-state” was that consciousness is not everything, and it is conditional. The interesting thing about this is that those claiming that Consciousness is absolute have a great point. Consciousness is absolute, from the perspective of consciousness. Consciousness itself is an experiential thing by its very nature, as is your normal human self. Consciousness cannot be destroyed because Consciousness IS by its very definition. But this does not account for the other side of the duality which can be accounted for — what IS NOT. 
 

For example, the number zero isn’t actually a thing. It’s the absence of a thing. You can count one chicken, two chickens, three chickens, but you don’t actually see and count zero chickens. Regardless, zero chickens is relevant, and it can be verified by understanding what IS there to be counted. Verifying this “state/non-state” called cessation works in a similar fashion although this is of course oversimplified, and the example will not do what I’m pointing to any justice unless someone has encountered this for themselves. 
 

I attest based on my experience that the reality of something beyond consciousness can be verified, and it is not wise to trivialize this realization. My spiritual practice of 7-8 years was child’s play up until the point of that realization, and my state of consciousness altered at that time in a way that has never reverted back since which undoubtedly can be felt as a great improvement. 
 

I’d say there’s nothing wrong about speaking of Consciousness as Absolute if what that means to you also includes what I’m referring to which is outside the bounds of the lower-tier realization of Consciousness as Absolute which doesn’t account for the unconditioned, that which is beyond the experiential realm. If one’s notion of infinity is not including this, that person still has much further to go as I know I’m nowhere near the end of the road, and even I have seen this. 

[Hojo]

@emil1234 i think its because Brahman is not self reflective so there is no one there. When God is God its not anything else and God is nothing so it actually dosent exist. But it does exist as nothing.

If something dosent exist does it exist? Buddhist say no Hindus say yes. Both are right.

Edited March 23, 2024 by Hojo

[emil1234]

@BipolarGrowth i was looking through my profile and noticed i never got around to answering ur question.

i found this guy on yt, he made a whole series about the matter of anatman in original buddhism. seems to really know his stuff.

in regards to the question of cessation;  i don't think it necessarily contradicts consciousness as an absolute. if consciousness really is unlimited potential, it shouldn't limited by our default definition or even understanding of consciousness as an AWARE PRESENCE, or the "ground of experience". its simply pure potentiality, and thus it has to include "non-existence". 

another argument is that of an infinite scale. if you can scale consciousness up infinitely, which can be done experientially through for example 5 meo dmt or deep meditation, then it would be weird if it were not able to scale down infinitely as well.

but yea there are many ways to look at this subject

On 23.3.2024 at 1:07 AM, BipolarGrowth said:

Where did you find this? I’d be quite interested to see the source for this claim. Keep in mind that Buddhism was originally an oral tradition for a long period of time, so those who claim to know precisely what the Buddha taught are on shaky ground. The Theravadins love to speak that way. 
 

 

 

[Razard86]

The only thing to do is to realize more and when you get to the ultimate realization you will know. Each perspective of God if honest can only speak from their own level of consciousness and the knowledge of those experiences. The problem is humans like to speculate and pass on what they hear from people they respect and so you get bombarded by false information.

So in life, all you can do is investigate for yourself to find out what is true. Don't fall into the trap of speculating for years on what could be true. Just pursue truth, and it will reveal itself to you based on your level of readiness.

[Yimpa]

1 minute ago, Razard86 said:

Don't fall into the trap of speculating for years on what could be true.

Time is seen as completely made up the deeper you awaken to Truth 

[Applegarden8]

They are excluding everything including the concept of concepts because it just works to keep away from identification with anything which does the trick.

[Someone here]

I'm from India..I know exactly about this unatman (no self ) from Buddhism.  Buddhism is extremely limited religion and they believe in all sorts of mythologies.  One of which is this thing about no self . Hinduism claims that there is the true Self or brahma..Buddhism rejects all self-identity..there isn't true self or false self ..there is just nobody home 

 Every Schmuck with more than zero brain cells knows that this is completely nonsensical. 

[tuku747]

Some people just like to deny things, I guess 🤷 

[Razard86]

17 hours ago, Yimpa said:

Time is seen as completely made up the deeper you awaken to Truth 

Tis true but I'd rather discover truth at 30 than 60.

[Oppositionless]

Buddhism has lots of different schools with lots of different teachings, and even within the schools there is a variety of belief.

Huang Po understands.

The text you've shared is from the beginning of "The Chün Chou Record of the Zen Master Huang Po (Tuan Chi)," which is part of John Blofeld’s translation of Huang Po's teachings. The excerpt reads as follows:⸻

PART ONE

The Master said to me: All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists. This Mind, which is without beginning, is unborn1 and indestructible. It is not green nor yellow, and has neither form nor appearance. It does not belong to the categories of things which exist or do not exist, nor can it be thought of in terms of new or old. It is neither long nor short, big nor small, for it transcends all limits, measures, names, traces and comparisons. It is that which you see before you—begin to reason about it and you at once fall into error. It is like the boundless void which cannot be fathomed or measured. The One Mind alone is the Buddha, and there is no distinction between the Buddha and sentient things, but that sentient beings are attached to forms and so seek externally for Buddhahood. By their very seeking they lose it, for that is using the Buddha to seek for the Buddha and using mind to grasp Mind. Even though they do their utmost for a full aeon, they will not be able to attain to it. They do not know that, if they put a stop to conceptual thought and forget their anxiety, the Buddha will appear before them, for this Mind is the Buddha and the Buddha is all living beings. It is not the less for being manifested in ordinary beings, nor is it greater for being manifested in the Buddhas.

[Oppositionless]

Brad warner talked about this. 

“nonduality” wasn’t really a thing 2500 years ago. the thing the Buddha was saying doesn’t exist is what we would call ego.

Zen and Advaita began the true self doctrine about a thousand years after the Buddha died

[Ajay0]

Mahayan Buddhism talks about the 'Buddha nature' which is similar to the Self in Hinduism. Emphasis on  Awareness is a common point in Theravadan/Mahayan Buddhism as well as Hinduism.

Therevadan Buddhism emphasizes nothingness/emptiness because it is the ultimate ego-buster.  Who wants to be nothing ? Hinduism and nondual philosophies states that one is the Self or Infinite, which are good for the ego or self-image to cling to. But nothingness is an entirely different proposition.

We are coming from emptiness and going back to emptiness.

Just as the vastness of space helps bring a sense of proportion and scales down the covetous human ego, similarly the philosophy of emptiness is designed to scale down the ego acting as a psychological austerity and helps to bring a sense of proportion and  perspective, which enables mindfulness to blossom.