Thanks for touching on this daunting topic, Brad! Here are a few ideas from someone who has spent time in Vedāntic and Buddhist circles: 1) The Judeo-Christian idea of ‘soul’ is not exactly equivalent to the Vedāntic idea of the Ātman. So, when talking about the ‘soul’ we will have to keep this distinction in mind. 2) Hare Krishna is ‘mass-market’ Vedānta, while good intentioned for the most part, don’t expect a nuanced philosophically robust presentations or translations from them. The Hare Krishna’s claim to be aligned with Madhvācārya, a medieval Vedāntin who held ideas that are extreme at times and at odds with his notable more moderate predecessors such as Rāmānuja and Ādi Śaṅkarācārya. 3) Bhagavad-Gītā is a summary study of the Upaniṣads and although representing the teachings of Vedānta in a compact poetic form, we will have to turn to hardcore philosophical texts such as the Brahmasūtra and its commentaries for a deep philosophical understanding of the Ātman and Brahman. 4) As Adam Mizner mentioned anattā (or, anātman) is an adjective. Actually, if the Buddha wanted to deny the Ātman, he could have just used the term nirātman (‘non-self’) to describe his position. He never does that, because such a position would be nihilistic. Instead, he prefers to consistently use anatta to describe the five khandhas (skandha-s). 5) Philosophically, the self (Ātman) of Vedānta is never a ‘thing’, it is never the object of knowledge, it ‘illuminates’ objective reality with awareness itself. I would suggest checking out the fantastic contribution of Swami Sarvapriyananda, he has a background in Vedānta along with Mādhyamaka and Yogācāra from Harvard. You can find him here on TH-cam. 6) Your conclusion at (20:15) invokes the Bhagavad-Gīta, almost verbatim: ‘brahma na sat tan nāsad’ Bg 13.13, Brahman is beyond being and non-being.
Hey Brad, I was wondering if you could do a video about Nagarjuna, I recently purchased a book that Nishijima Roshi had translated and you are a commentator. I had no idea this book existed up until recently. I already had a translation by Garfield. I was super excited to see you on the cover. Instant buy. Regardless, thanks so much and keep it up!!!
The man in the Instagram video you showed is espousing the view of the Shrenikans (didn't think Shrenika would be invoked again after your video on AI, huh? lol). A passage from Dogen's summary of the supposed Shrenikan viewpoint: "... when this body of ours perishes, this soul-like nature sloughs it off and is reborn somewhere else. As a result, even though it appears to perish in the here and now, it will have its rebirth in another place, never perishing, but always abiding unchanged." Shrenika actually appears in the Pali Suttas and Agama Sutras. He was a wanderer who was intent on finding the true nature of the "self" and the cosmos. In one of the stories, he asks the Buddha "... does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The soul & the body are the same'... ?" to which Shakyamuni replies "no." He then asks "then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... ?" To which Shakyamuni also replies "no." If this was not enough to counter the bald dude's point, a passage from the Lankavatara Sutra refutes it more directly: "An ego-soul [atman] is a truth belonging to thought-construction, in which there is no real reality; the self-nature of the Skandhas is also a thought-construction, as there is no reality in it." This takes the position that the soul is not found in the skandhas, but also that the notion of a soul conceived of as abiding outside of the skandhas is also illusory.
In Old Testament Hebrew, humans and animals are equally “nepes” (breathers), which is what we became when God breathed life into us. There is no hard dualism between body and the soul. We are, at least until death, the inseparable integration of body and soul, both God-given and good. Later neo-platonism and Gnosticism were much more inclined to separate body from soul, to the point of painting the body evil and the soul good.
I'm not so sure about your claim of non dualism. The OT has a few different words for soul (nefesh) and spirit (ruach, meaning wind) and body (guf). There are other words too like neshama that means soul but the nuance is different and complicated. The terms are discussed more in Kabbalist literature.
@@fancee_shmancee True, I’m not claiming that there is no dualism, only that it is less pronounced than our modern materialist mind/body distinction. If we really want to get fancy we could also add to this picture the animism that is also present in the Bible - e.g. ravens crying to God for their food, playing sea monsters, water and wind called to give praise, etc. This is not a world of dead matter and active mind 🙂
Buddha used the word CITTA in the same way Hindus use the word ATMAN. The Pali Text Society translates Citta as 'Heart'. But its usually translated as 'Mind'. There is a good video explanation of this from a Pali translator called... "Citta / Mind / Spirit in earliest Original Buddhism"
Citta is not used in the same way as atman. I can see how you might get that impression, but it’s simply not the case. There are teachings directly opposed to this claim in both the Pali schools and the Mahayana. Citta refers to the mind. Atman refers to an eternal “self” or soul.
@@chrisplaysdrums09 "Citta refers to the mind. Atman refers to an eternal “self” or soul." Citta is sometimes translated as MIND and sometimes as HEART. Some Chinese texts use a double character meaning translated as 'heart-mind'. And yes, in the original Pali texts it is eternal. If you watch the video I noted there are many references to this from a Pali translator quoting directly from the original texts.
Oh wow! I thought I was the only person who remembered that song from Dark Star. What a strange and deep movie for something that looks like a budget film.
Hey brad, id love to hear you and swami sarvapriyanada have a conversation. Bring some buddhist and vedanta together. The Upanishads speak of the eternal Self, atman, bhraman, as being different from that which is experienced as self, mind and body. But is the Self which experiences. It seems resonable the buddha would have encountered the upanshid ideas in his time. Again id love to hear you and swami sarvapriyanada talk. My only take is that all sages, saints, and religious concepts may differ, but the underlying theme within all is the eternal amongst the transient. The silence of sound. The being of nonbeing. Unity amongst multiplicity.
As soon as I heard "soul drives the body" I KNEW you were gonna bring the hare keishnas inro it😂 Next time at least give me an ISKON trigger warning...😂😂😂
Back to the Future is my favorite movie! What a great outfit for Ziggy. "Hey, doggie, what did you do, jump ship? What's with the life preserver?" By the way, that gentleman's starting premise, that the absence of a soul renders spiritual practice nothing more than psychology, is a huge assumption, and I wish instead of starting there he had explained his logic.
Me thinks, Mr. Mizner thinks that “spiritual practice“ needs to go transcendental, so to speak, i.e. to inquire theoretically-practically into the “conditions of the possibility“ (I. Kant) of organic psycho-somatic “conscious being“ (alias body-mind).
yeah I also switched off there, I had always assumed that "all this" was about understanding what it means to be alive and to experience it "better", and get those "ah I see something else" chuckles. I don't see what any of that has to do with a soul or with a mind, and I definitely don't see what it has to do with psychology
The law of conversation says energy can not be created or destroyed.. If there is reincrantion, what is being recranated, if there is no soul, ( or energy) to recarnate??? If we are part of a whole, then we don't have a self soul, we are everyone's soul.... geeze it all gets way to confusing
Well if we end up as nothing, there is nothing to be upset about being nothing. I can understand thought why people think there must be something that contnues. We don't know everything so may there is something else going on we don't know about yet ?
I think you make a good point. It manifests when sitting more than when talking about it. An image of a soul or whatever now is something you take with you, a concept Concepts are fine when talking, thinking, writing but taking into sitting, I have doubts that it is helpful. Also, Adam Mizner is well known in the Tai Chi/ internal arts circle.
I've had difficulty understanding mr Mizners take on Buddhism for about a year, trying to see how his views meld with the teachings. Now it seems to me he isn't a Buddhist at all. Maybe in a year I'll think different.
What you described as manas is actually the ahamkara (roughly translates to ego). I think a big part of the journey is realizing that the ahamkara and Atman are not the same, but are related in the way that pot is to clay. In truth the pot is nothing but clay, though the pot has a name, a form, and a use. I think you've used the wave/ocean/water metaphor, so it would be cool to see you do a video on your thoughts on the Vedantan Clay Pot metaphor. :)
The self is an evolutionary necessity. Imagine if a baby could not cry because he feels that the hunger he feels is not "him" it's just a feeling that exists. That baby would eventually die. Fully enlightned people can only survive because they are adults. I believe i remember Buddha himself "forgot" to eat after enlighment, because it was not a necessety anymore. He had to do it intentionally. That's why i think enlightment, in it's last and final assement, is essentially becoming something non-human.
This isn’t really on topic, but I recently picked up a copy of a commentary on Uji called “Being-Time,” by Shinshu Roberts. Do you know it? If so, what did you think?
@HardcoreZen Ah, the author mentions Katagiri- I’ll have to look for that. Uji is one of my favorites from Dogen. “Scholarliness” doesn’t really matter to me if the writing and teaching are sufficient. Thanks for the recommendation!
Hi Brad. In Buddhism, the idea of having no soul seems to contradict with the belief in reincarnation. If a person does not have a soul, then what is the thing/stuff that passes from one life to the next one? I myself am skeptical about both reincarnation and the existence of soul, but I wonder how Buddhism resolves this apparent contradiction within its belief system.
The theory is that what passes from body to body is not "soul" but "self" (ego). The self is a real thing that can be experienced and can last for some time but it is not indestructible or immortal. It is, like all things, a product of various causes and conditions. Think of a flame being passed from candle to candle. It is real and can continue for sometime but is ultimately temporary. When the sense of self is extinguished, it is called "Nirvana." Most serious Buddhists experience Nirvana at some point - even if only temporarily. Something persists in the body after nirvana but that "something" is not a unique to the body or the experiences of the self. It is the universal life force common to all things. But like a flame rising from coals, the self can rise again in the body due to ongoing karma. This is quite common. However, when the body dies while the sense of self is extinguished it is called "Paranirvana" and the self will not be reborn in another body. This is what happened to the Buddha.
I think the best "translation" we should use for anatta/anatman is "impersonal"...in the sense of something not bein "me,myself,mine"...as so many times we find in the suttas/sutras...
Us westerners are stuck on the soul because its Judeo-Christian meaning, inferences, and concepts from birth. Plus, like you said, categorizations/typologies make things easier for us to deal with our perceived reality. It's dangerous to the do that and it's bad for you. Viva Ziggy!!
All i know is that I'm doing it wrong. I am afraid that if I get the subtle distinction wrong between the Atman of Advaita Vendanta and the Anatman of traditional Buddhism, then my whole spiritual practice will be on the wrong track, and I'll mess up this life and the next.
@@justinhart2831 I don’t think it matters very much whether we get these distinctions or not. That stuff is all in the realm of thought. Action is much more significant than thought.
Call it absolute, relative , one , many , omnipotent ext ext, it just is all things physical or non physical are just being , we all are aspects of all. Now I am is the name of god, we are all parts of god at play on earth plane, here we express the one on our way too god / one ness. Really we are god/ light beings
In Chapter 9 of Carl Jung's Mondern Man in Search of a Soul this is all explained. There's the scientific materialism view that denies the soul. "To grant the substantiality of the soul or psyche is repugnant to the spirit of the age, for to do so would be heresy." There's a primative view that assumes the soul. "To him the psyche appears as the source of life, the prime mover, a ghost-like presence which has objective reality." Both those views are kinda incomplete. And there is an answer, "Experience shows us that the sense of the 'I'-the ego-consciousness-grows out of unconscious life."..."We can easily understand why higher and even divine knowledge was formerly ascribed to the psyche if we remember that in ancient cultures, beginning with primitive times, man always resorted to dreams and visions as a source of information."..."Psychic reality exists in its original oneness, and awaits man’s advance to a level of consciousness where he no longer believes in the one part and denies the other, but recognizes both as constituent elements of one psyche."..."This is especially true of the two, greatest religions of man, Christianity and Buddhism."
It fell apart for him, in my view, when he said that by virtue of the fact that the psychophysical is not the soul, it therefore 100% follows that everything that is not the psychophysical IS the soul. That's just poor logic, like saying that the fact that a cat is not a dog means that everything that is not a cat, is a dog. No.
Maybe he Lena to say that the “soul“ (some essential inner nature, Tathagarhagarba, or so) can function as a kind of “ferry“ between our this-wordly “bubble of perception“ and the “other-“ or “beyondworldly“. - At least this “map“ would correspond to traditional psycho-cosmologies not only in the East, but also in rhe West, like those in ancient Egypt, as studied in an C.G. Jungian vein by Erich Neumann (1952[?]), “Ursprünge des Bewußtseins“ ('origins of conscious-being).
I do not like zen I do not like Rinzi I do not like Soto. I went to booth and and yes iam gonna be a jerk, with out writing a book I really can’t stand ither one. However I do like Shugendo they say it comes from Japan but most likely is a folk Taoist import. The rinzi had a nice gift shop where I got some agarwood incense but other then that they both suck and yes I have a very good experiential and scholarly experience with Buddhism.
a "soul" that lives on after death is a misunderstanding of the Bible, that is NOT Biblical watch youtube videos What It Means to Love God With "All Your Soul" and Hebrew Meaning of Soul, Nephesh נֶפֶש in Genesis - Dr. Joel B. Green
appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Maybe if you could give this person’s argument we can debate it on its merits?. It’s a problem Mahayana Buddhists fail to contend with. It’s a big philosophical problem. It’s one of the major reasons Theravada rejects Mahayana.
@@WrongWorld23 The Dzogchen tantras address this point and refute it completely. I think it's chapter 25 of The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra (Malcolm), where the Buddha completely refutes the claim that Dzogchen is just Advaita Vedanta. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, both are seen as "nondual systems" but they aren't just equivalent expressions of some same religious point. The early masters of Dzogchen where aware of Advaita Vedanta (of course) and they were very clear that Dzogchen isn't just Advaita with different terms used.
Thanks for touching on this daunting topic, Brad!
Here are a few ideas from someone who has spent time in Vedāntic and Buddhist circles:
1) The Judeo-Christian idea of ‘soul’ is not exactly equivalent to the Vedāntic idea of the Ātman. So, when talking about the ‘soul’ we will have to keep this distinction in mind.
2) Hare Krishna is ‘mass-market’ Vedānta, while good intentioned for the most part, don’t expect a nuanced philosophically robust presentations or translations from them. The Hare Krishna’s claim to be aligned with Madhvācārya, a medieval Vedāntin who held ideas that are extreme at times and at odds with his notable more moderate predecessors such as Rāmānuja and Ādi Śaṅkarācārya.
3) Bhagavad-Gītā is a summary study of the Upaniṣads and although representing the teachings of Vedānta in a compact poetic form, we will have to turn to hardcore philosophical texts such as the Brahmasūtra and its commentaries for a deep philosophical understanding of the Ātman and Brahman.
4) As Adam Mizner mentioned anattā (or, anātman) is an adjective. Actually, if the Buddha wanted to deny the Ātman, he could have just used the term nirātman (‘non-self’) to describe his position. He never does that, because such a position would be nihilistic. Instead, he prefers to consistently use anatta to describe the five khandhas (skandha-s).
5) Philosophically, the self (Ātman) of Vedānta is never a ‘thing’, it is never the object of knowledge, it ‘illuminates’ objective reality with awareness itself. I would suggest checking out the fantastic contribution of Swami Sarvapriyananda, he has a background in Vedānta along with Mādhyamaka and Yogācāra from Harvard. You can find him here on TH-cam.
6) Your conclusion at (20:15) invokes the Bhagavad-Gīta, almost verbatim: ‘brahma
na sat tan nāsad’ Bg 13.13, Brahman is beyond being and non-being.
Hey Brad, I was wondering if you could do a video about Nagarjuna, I recently purchased a book that Nishijima Roshi had translated and you are a commentator. I had no idea this book existed up until recently. I already had a translation by Garfield. I was super excited to see you on the cover. Instant buy. Regardless, thanks so much and keep it up!!!
Yes indeed. Nagarjuna is a key figure in Mahayana Buddhism and is recognised in Zen lineages and his work is studied in Tibetan traditions.
The man in the Instagram video you showed is espousing the view of the Shrenikans (didn't think Shrenika would be invoked again after your video on AI, huh? lol). A passage from Dogen's summary of the supposed Shrenikan viewpoint: "... when this body of ours perishes, this soul-like nature sloughs it off and is reborn somewhere else. As a result, even though it appears to perish in the here and now, it will have its rebirth in another place, never perishing, but always abiding unchanged."
Shrenika actually appears in the Pali Suttas and Agama Sutras. He was a wanderer who was intent on finding the true nature of the "self" and the cosmos. In one of the stories, he asks the Buddha "... does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The soul & the body are the same'... ?" to which Shakyamuni replies "no." He then asks "then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... ?" To which Shakyamuni also replies "no."
If this was not enough to counter the bald dude's point, a passage from the Lankavatara Sutra refutes it more directly: "An ego-soul [atman] is a truth belonging to thought-construction, in which there is no real reality; the self-nature of the Skandhas is also a thought-construction, as there is no reality in it."
This takes the position that the soul is not found in the skandhas, but also that the notion of a soul conceived of as abiding outside of the skandhas is also illusory.
Q: Slice of reality?
A: Just a small one, I’m on a diet.
Exactly why I switched to no sugar variants of reality.
Nice intro! Diggin’ the lower register
In Old Testament Hebrew, humans and animals are equally “nepes” (breathers), which is what we became when God breathed life into us. There is no hard dualism between body and the soul. We are, at least until death, the inseparable integration of body and soul, both God-given and good. Later neo-platonism and Gnosticism were much more inclined to separate body from soul, to the point of painting the body evil and the soul good.
@ I’m sure you’re correct - I’m no expert in Gnosticism but I believe at least a separation of body was implicit.
I'm not so sure about your claim of non dualism. The OT has a few different words for soul (nefesh) and spirit (ruach, meaning wind) and body (guf). There are other words too like neshama that means soul but the nuance is different and complicated. The terms are discussed more in Kabbalist literature.
@@fancee_shmancee True, I’m not claiming that there is no dualism, only that it is less pronounced than our modern materialist mind/body distinction. If we really want to get fancy we could also add to this picture the animism that is also present in the Bible - e.g. ravens crying to God for their food, playing sea monsters, water and wind called to give praise, etc. This is not a world of dead matter and active mind 🙂
Really good video. Was actually not confusing.
Buddha used the word CITTA in the same way Hindus use the word ATMAN.
The Pali Text Society translates Citta as 'Heart'.
But its usually translated as 'Mind'.
There is a good video explanation of this from a Pali translator called...
"Citta / Mind / Spirit in earliest Original Buddhism"
Citta is not used in the same way as atman. I can see how you might get that impression, but it’s simply not the case. There are teachings directly opposed to this claim in both the Pali schools and the Mahayana. Citta refers to the mind. Atman refers to an eternal “self” or soul.
@@chrisplaysdrums09 "Citta refers to the mind. Atman refers to an eternal “self” or soul."
Citta is sometimes translated as MIND and sometimes as HEART.
Some Chinese texts use a double character meaning translated as 'heart-mind'.
And yes, in the original Pali texts it is eternal. If you watch the video I noted there are many references to this from a Pali translator quoting directly from the original texts.
Oh wow! I thought I was the only person who remembered that song from Dark Star. What a strange and deep movie for something that looks like a budget film.
Great video BTW. Thank you.
Great explanation! Thank you.
Hey brad, id love to hear you and swami sarvapriyanada have a conversation. Bring some buddhist and vedanta together.
The Upanishads speak of the eternal Self, atman, bhraman, as being different from that which is experienced as self, mind and body. But is the Self which experiences.
It seems resonable the buddha would have encountered the upanshid ideas in his time. Again id love to hear you and swami sarvapriyanada talk.
My only take is that all sages, saints, and religious concepts may differ, but the underlying theme within all is the eternal amongst the transient. The silence of sound. The being of nonbeing. Unity amongst multiplicity.
As soon as I heard "soul drives the body" I KNEW you were gonna bring the hare keishnas inro it😂 Next time at least give me an ISKON trigger warning...😂😂😂
Back to the Future is my favorite movie! What a great outfit for Ziggy. "Hey, doggie, what did you do, jump ship? What's with the life preserver?"
By the way, that gentleman's starting premise, that the absence of a soul renders spiritual practice nothing more than psychology, is a huge assumption, and I wish instead of starting there he had explained his logic.
Me thinks, Mr. Mizner thinks that “spiritual practice“ needs to go transcendental, so to speak, i.e. to inquire theoretically-practically into the “conditions of the possibility“ (I. Kant) of organic psycho-somatic “conscious being“ (alias body-mind).
yeah I also switched off there, I had always assumed that "all this" was about understanding what it means to be alive and to experience it "better", and get those "ah I see something else" chuckles. I don't see what any of that has to do with a soul or with a mind, and I definitely don't see what it has to do with psychology
The “Heart-School“ has nothing to do with “studying the heart“? Really, I wonder.
The law of conversation says energy can not be created or destroyed..
If there is reincrantion, what is being recranated, if there is no soul, ( or energy) to recarnate???
If we are part of a whole, then we don't have a self soul, we are everyone's soul.... geeze it all gets way to confusing
Music is getting better and better!
@@llamadeusmozart thank you!
Well if we end up as nothing, there is nothing to be upset about being nothing. I can understand thought why people think there must be something that contnues. We don't know everything so may there is something else going on we don't know about yet ?
I think you make a good point. It manifests when sitting more than when talking about it. An image of a soul or whatever now is something you take with you, a concept
Concepts are fine when talking, thinking, writing but taking into sitting, I have doubts that it is helpful.
Also, Adam Mizner is well known in the Tai Chi/ internal arts circle.
I've had difficulty understanding mr Mizners take on Buddhism for about a year, trying to see how his views meld with the teachings. Now it seems to me he isn't a Buddhist at all. Maybe in a year I'll think different.
Indeed it is his 'take' on Buddhism.
What you described as manas is actually the ahamkara (roughly translates to ego). I think a big part of the journey is realizing that the ahamkara and Atman are not the same, but are related in the way that pot is to clay. In truth the pot is nothing but clay, though the pot has a name, a form, and a use. I think you've used the wave/ocean/water metaphor, so it would be cool to see you do a video on your thoughts on the Vedantan Clay Pot metaphor. :)
"a little learning is a dangerous thing
drink deep or taste not the pierian spring"
(alexander pope: an essay on criticism)🐭
hi ziggy.
You have no soul, you ARE a soul, you have a body.
Dark Star!!
How could it live if it was just full of air?
Psychic being, Sri Aurobindo and The Mother, that’s it basically dude. Buddhism is lol on this point.
The self is an evolutionary necessity. Imagine if a baby could not cry because he feels that the hunger he feels is not "him" it's just a feeling that exists. That baby would eventually die. Fully enlightned people can only survive because they are adults. I believe i remember Buddha himself "forgot" to eat after enlighment, because it was not a necessety anymore. He had to do it intentionally. That's why i think enlightment, in it's last and final assement, is essentially becoming something non-human.
Best intro ever 😂
This isn’t really on topic, but I recently picked up a copy of a commentary on Uji called “Being-Time,” by Shinshu Roberts. Do you know it? If so, what did you think?
I have it. I think it's a good overview of Dogen's Uji. Dainin Katagiri's Each Moment is the Universe is also great, but much less scholarly.
@HardcoreZen Ah, the author mentions Katagiri- I’ll have to look for that. Uji is one of my favorites from Dogen. “Scholarliness” doesn’t really matter to me if the writing and teaching are sufficient. Thanks for the recommendation!
WELL SAID
does zen ever talk about the wheel turning monarch?
Yes, that's in the Genjo Koan.
Firewood is not ashes. Ashes are not firewood.
then what is firewood and what is ashes
🍿
When someone says you have no soul lol it just sounds wrong 😂
After decades of practice, I’ve concluded that there is “something beyond the physical”… just weighing in.
Our souls have bodies
Whose souls?
@@HardcoreZen Good point.
Hi Brad. In Buddhism, the idea of having no soul seems to contradict with the belief in reincarnation. If a person does not have a soul, then what is the thing/stuff that passes from one life to the next one? I myself am skeptical about both reincarnation and the existence of soul, but I wonder how Buddhism resolves this apparent contradiction within its belief system.
The theory is that what passes from body to body is not "soul" but "self" (ego). The self is a real thing that can be experienced and can last for some time but it is not indestructible or immortal. It is, like all things, a product of various causes and conditions. Think of a flame being passed from candle to candle. It is real and can continue for sometime but is ultimately temporary. When the sense of self is extinguished, it is called "Nirvana." Most serious Buddhists experience Nirvana at some point - even if only temporarily. Something persists in the body after nirvana but that "something" is not a unique to the body or the experiences of the self. It is the universal life force common to all things. But like a flame rising from coals, the self can rise again in the body due to ongoing karma. This is quite common. However, when the body dies while the sense of self is extinguished it is called "Paranirvana" and the self will not be reborn in another body. This is what happened to the Buddha.
@kevindole1284 Thanks for the clarification. That sounds very similar to the idea of "henosis" in the Western esoteric tradition.
Here's one of th videos I made about this:
th-cam.com/video/_rqT0NqcfV4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ZePWJUtqB3j5zgPQ
@@HardcoreZen Thanks Brad.
@@kevindole1284
"Most serious Buddhists experience Nirvana at some point"
What is it that experiences Nirvana?
Great wallpaper
Brad is everyone's Soul-brother😄
👍, I think.
The problem is that reality cannot be described in language. Nirvana may just be one aspect of reality.
I think the best "translation" we should use for anatta/anatman is "impersonal"...in the sense of something not bein "me,myself,mine"...as so many times we find in the suttas/sutras...
Us westerners are stuck on the soul because its Judeo-Christian meaning, inferences, and concepts from birth. Plus, like you said, categorizations/typologies make things easier for us to deal with our perceived reality. It's dangerous to the do that and it's bad for you. Viva Ziggy!!
I also heard the concept that body lives in the soul... just to add a little more confusion here 😀
All i know is that I'm doing it wrong. I am afraid that if I get the subtle distinction wrong between the Atman of Advaita Vendanta and the Anatman of traditional Buddhism, then my whole spiritual practice will be on the wrong track, and I'll mess up this life and the next.
@@justinhart2831 I don’t think it matters very much whether we get these distinctions or not. That stuff is all in the realm of thought. Action is much more significant than thought.
@HardcoreZen Thank you. I needed to hear that
flagship web-sites
the guy had that "Spiritual" tone / cadence going on when he spoke so I usually discount whatever is being said at that point... just talk regular!
okay is this ananda seva hahaa I know a lot of how it works
Call it absolute, relative , one , many , omnipotent ext ext, it just is all things physical or non physical are just being , we all are aspects of all.
Now I am is the name of god, we are all parts of god at play on earth plane, here we express the one on our way too god / one ness.
Really we are god/ light beings
more than
In Chapter 9 of Carl Jung's Mondern Man in Search of a Soul this is all explained. There's the scientific materialism view that denies the soul. "To grant the substantiality of the soul or psyche is repugnant to the spirit of the age, for to do so would be heresy." There's a primative view that assumes the soul. "To him the psyche appears as the source of life, the prime mover, a ghost-like presence which has objective reality." Both those views are kinda incomplete. And there is an answer, "Experience shows us that the sense of the 'I'-the ego-consciousness-grows out of unconscious life."..."We can easily understand why higher and even divine knowledge was formerly ascribed to the psyche if we remember that in ancient cultures, beginning with primitive times, man always resorted to dreams and visions as a source of information."..."Psychic reality exists in its original oneness, and awaits man’s advance to a level of consciousness where he no longer believes in the one part and denies the other, but recognizes both as constituent elements of one psyche."..."This is especially true of the two, greatest religions of man, Christianity and Buddhism."
@@evoshroom interesting. Thank you!
It fell apart for him, in my view, when he said that by virtue of the fact that the psychophysical is not the soul, it therefore 100% follows that everything that is not the psychophysical IS the soul. That's just poor logic, like saying that the fact that a cat is not a dog means that everything that is not a cat, is a dog. No.
Maybe he Lena to say that the “soul“ (some essential inner nature, Tathagarhagarba, or so) can function as a kind of “ferry“ between our this-wordly “bubble of perception“ and the “other-“ or “beyondworldly“. - At least this “map“ would correspond to traditional psycho-cosmologies not only in the East, but also in rhe West, like those in ancient Egypt, as studied in an C.G. Jungian vein by Erich Neumann (1952[?]), “Ursprünge des Bewußtseins“ ('origins of conscious-being).
I do not like zen I do not like Rinzi I do not like Soto. I went to booth and and yes iam gonna be a jerk, with out writing a book I really can’t stand ither one. However I do like Shugendo they say it comes from Japan but most likely is a folk Taoist import. The rinzi had a nice gift shop where I got some agarwood incense but other then that they both suck and yes I have a very good experiential and scholarly experience with Buddhism.
a "soul" that lives on after death is a misunderstanding of the Bible, that is NOT Biblical
watch youtube videos
What It Means to Love God With "All Your Soul"
and
Hebrew Meaning of Soul, Nephesh נֶפֶש in Genesis - Dr. Joel B. Green
Soul was just rebranded as “Mind” or “Buddha nature” by Mahayana Buddhists. It’s semantic.
No, read the writings of Sridhar Rana Rinpoche, he practiced both Hinduism and Buddhism
appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Maybe if you could give this person’s argument we can debate it on its merits?. It’s a problem Mahayana Buddhists fail to contend with. It’s a big philosophical problem. It’s one of the major reasons Theravada rejects Mahayana.
@@MrBalthazar78 im not appealing to authority, im telling you to read his writings where he provides the arguents and explanations
@ ok then you should talk to any Theravada novice monk so he can debunk it.
Madhyamaka Buddhism=Advaita Vedanta.
What about Dzogchen?
Nerds :)
Nice equation, but totally wrong
@@WrongWorld23 The Dzogchen tantras address this point and refute it completely. I think it's chapter 25 of The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra (Malcolm), where the Buddha completely refutes the claim that Dzogchen is just Advaita Vedanta. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, both are seen as "nondual systems" but they aren't just equivalent expressions of some same religious point. The early masters of Dzogchen where aware of Advaita Vedanta (of course) and they were very clear that Dzogchen isn't just Advaita with different terms used.
@@Traumatose Totally wrong? Explain how in meticulous detail.