What would you call something if it was continuous between lifetimes, but was capable of infinite change? Since there is nothing “changeless” about it, you would be incorrect to call it an Atman, correct? It does meet the definition.PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:09 pm How would one argue that the subtle consciousness referred to in Vajrayana, the one experiencing the bardo state and taking rebirth, how would one argue that this isn’t just another way of asserting some concept of a soul or atman, some kind of permanent self?
Soul vs Consciousness?
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: Soul vs Consciousness?
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
-
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:40 pm
- Location: San Francisco, California
Re: Soul vs Consciousness?
We call it a citta-santana to establish that it is not.PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:09 pm How would one argue that the subtle consciousness referred to in Vajrayana, the one experiencing the bardo state and taking rebirth, how would one argue that this isn’t just another way of asserting some concept of a soul or atman, some kind of permanent self?
.
.
.
In relation to your earlier question, you seem to be conflating the idea of something being non-essential with being non-discrete, when these are two different things. I think this may in part be at the root of your delusion. Just becaues something has no essence does not mean it cannot be discrete; just because something is discrete does not mean it possesses any kind of essence.
Nam mô A di đà Phật
Nam mô Quan Thế Âm Bồ tát
Nam mô Đại Thế Chi Bồ Tát
Nam mô Bổn sư Thích ca mâu ni Phật
Nam mô Di lặc Bồ tát
Nam mô Địa tạng vương Bồ tát
Nam mô Quan Thế Âm Bồ tát
Nam mô Đại Thế Chi Bồ Tát
Nam mô Bổn sư Thích ca mâu ni Phật
Nam mô Di lặc Bồ tát
Nam mô Địa tạng vương Bồ tát
Re: Soul vs Consciousness?
A karmic bungee cord.smcj wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:14 pmWhat would you call something if it was continuous between lifetimes, but was capable of infinite change?PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:09 pm How would one argue that the subtle consciousness referred to in Vajrayana, the one experiencing the bardo state and taking rebirth, how would one argue that this isn’t just another way of asserting some concept of a soul or atman, some kind of permanent self?
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: Soul vs Consciousness?
Sounds about right!Malcolm wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:28 pmA karmic bungee cord.smcj wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:14 pmWhat would you call something if it was continuous between lifetimes, but was capable of infinite change?PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:09 pm How would one argue that the subtle consciousness referred to in Vajrayana, the one experiencing the bardo state and taking rebirth, how would one argue that this isn’t just another way of asserting some concept of a soul or atman, some kind of permanent self?
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9398
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: Soul vs Consciousness?
But if you say “it” is infinitely changing, then there’s no “it”. the very fact of constant change negates anything that can be identified as an “it”smcj wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:14 pmWhat would you call something if it was continuous between lifetimes, but was capable of infinite change? Since there is nothing “changeless” about it, you would be incorrect to call it an Atman, correct? It does meet the definition.PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:09 pm How would one argue that the subtle consciousness referred to in Vajrayana, the one experiencing the bardo state and taking rebirth, how would one argue that this isn’t just another way of asserting some concept of a soul or atman, some kind of permanent self?
Just the opposite. Atman refers to a constant essential thing, changeless in itself. A mannequin onto which different costumes are put.“Since there is nothing “changeless” about it, you would be incorrect to call it an Atman, correct?
.
.
.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9398
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: Soul vs Consciousness?
Ahh! That makes sense.
Thanks
.
.
.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: Soul vs Consciousness?
I think the objection Atman is the mannequin idea, at least as anything that manifests in the phenomenal world. It would be a restriction on how karma would be able to manifest. Think “Transformers” without any default identity, always having to transform without repeating the same appearance twice.Just the opposite. Atman refers to a constant essential thing, changeless in itself. A mannequin onto which different costumes are put.
Like the previous Kalu R said, if a being incarnates as a mouse, then elephant, then bird, which of these is their true identity? The mouse? So when it’s an elephant you’d have to say it’s real identity is a mouse? And so on.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: Soul vs Consciousness?
If the mind of clear light neither arises nor ceases, and is not comprised of parts, then how can it be compounded?
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9398
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: Soul vs Consciousness?
Oh yeah...that's a very good point.tobes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:31 pmIf the mind of clear light neither arises nor ceases, and is not comprised of parts, then how can it be compounded?
But because, in my question, I had asked about the subtle consciousness that experiences the bardo,
perhaps Malcolm is suggesting (referring to Gelugpa teachings) that this consciousness that experiences the bardo is not
'mind of clear light neither arises nor ceases'.
If it's being by karma all over the samsaric realms, it wouldn't be very clear, would it?
.
.
.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Re: Soul vs Consciousness?
"Soul" is a mental construct, the very vagueness of which has ensured its continuance. Although the modern-day Catholics may or may not define it as consciousness, this was assuredly not the case 1000 years ago. Nor is the present understanding of the word an easy match, semantically or from a historical viewpoint, with the Greek and Latin words it was supposedly derived from and equivalent to. Cross-cultural comparisons of words that have vague meanings and wildly different histories is probably a mug's game unless one wants to get very very specific about defining terms.
The Tibetan word "la" (bla) is often translated as "soul", and, nowadays, Bonpos sometimes substitute namshe for it, but it was sufficiently different in meaning 1200 years ago for the creators of Tibetan/Sankrit translation equivalences refused to admit "la" (in the old meaning) to their lexicon at all.
Similarly, in Chinese Buddhism, the first translators used ancient Chinese concepts like hun and po (two types of "soul"), but gradually became aware that that what not what Buddhism had in mind, and weeded them out, creating new equivalences. A good book on this subject is Jungnok Park's How Buddhism acquired a Soul on its way to China>
The Tibetan word "la" (bla) is often translated as "soul", and, nowadays, Bonpos sometimes substitute namshe for it, but it was sufficiently different in meaning 1200 years ago for the creators of Tibetan/Sankrit translation equivalences refused to admit "la" (in the old meaning) to their lexicon at all.
Similarly, in Chinese Buddhism, the first translators used ancient Chinese concepts like hun and po (two types of "soul"), but gradually became aware that that what not what Buddhism had in mind, and weeded them out, creating new equivalences. A good book on this subject is Jungnok Park's How Buddhism acquired a Soul on its way to China>
Re: Soul vs Consciousness?
It’s momentary.tobes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:31 pmIf the mind of clear light neither arises nor ceases, and is not comprised of parts, then how can it be compounded?
Re: Soul vs Consciousness?
Yes, and citing your reasoning above, soul a bad translation of bla, especially under its old meaning. In modern parlance among Buddhists, it’s usually held to a be a synonym of “tshe”, longevity. And, prebuddhist usages are evident still in certain kinds of “archaic” rituals which are practiced to summon a wandering bla.tingdzin wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:25 am "Soul" is a mental construct, the very vagueness of which has ensured its continuance. Although the modern-day Catholics may or may not define it as consciousness, this was assuredly not the case 1000 years ago. Nor is the present understanding of the word an easy match, semantically or from a historical viewpoint, with the Greek and Latin words it was supposedly derived from and equivalent to. Cross-cultural comparisons of words that have vague meanings and wildly different histories is probably a mug's game unless one wants to get very very specific about defining terms.
The Tibetan word "la" (bla) is often translated as "soul", and, nowadays, Bonpos sometimes substitute namshe for it, but it was sufficiently different in meaning 1200 years ago for the creators of Tibetan/Sankrit translation equivalences refused to admit "la" (in the old meaning) to their lexicon at all.
Re: Soul vs Consciousness?
Yes, soul is a very bad translation of bla.
Re: Soul vs Consciousness?
PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 6:45 am My understanding is that each thought moment immediately gives rise to the next thought moment, like a row of dominoes, each toppling the next.
The reason why we have an experience of a continuous self, rather than a strobe-light experience of rapidly occurring but separate thoughts, it’s like frames on motion picture film that stop for 1/24 of a second but flicker by in such rapid succession so as to create the illusion of continuous movement.
.
.
.
Yes , but we are of billiard of atoms, but still we are not an illusion, I mean the fact that something exist in some certain form, does not logically support that that thing is an illusion. So what if I say you that you are the film not the frames ? Plus the frames are all separated as you say of course, actually I worked for a while in cinemas, I had films in my hands, so the film is printed and there are these frames. But our memory won't work in this way. Because no matter how fast they run these frames, they are really separated, not connected. And if wires are not connected, to jump to another example, that serve my point here, electricity stops flowing. Plus the film need an engine to move, a screen, etc. I guess is more simple us.
We are living beings, with body and soul (?) or visible components and invisibles ones, plus who knows what else. For science we are just organisms, and chemical reactions. For spiritual people we are Spirits acting in visible forms. I guess only Reflection will say something to us, directly, and not some usual second hand knowledge.
Re: Soul vs Consciousness?
It’s momentary, and relative, in the geluk tradition.tobes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:31 pmIf the mind of clear light neither arises nor ceases, and is not comprised of parts, then how can it be compounded?
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9398
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: Soul vs Consciousness?
It’s the “we” you refer to at the beginning of your reply that is the illusion. Not the atoms and stuff.Druniel wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 1:33 amPadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 6:45 am My understanding is that each thought moment immediately gives rise to the next thought moment, like a row of dominoes, each toppling the next.
The reason why we have an experience of a continuous self, rather than a strobe-light experience of rapidly occurring but separate thoughts, it’s like frames on motion picture film that stop for 1/24 of a second but flicker by in such rapid succession so as to create the illusion of continuous movement.
.
.
.
Yes , but we are of billiard of atoms, but still we are not an illusion, I mean the fact that something exist in some certain form, does not logically support that that thing is an illusion. So what if I say you that you are the film not the frames ? Plus the frames are all separated as you say of course, actually I worked for a while in cinemas, I had films in my hands, so the film is printed and there are these frames. But our memory won't work in this way. Because no matter how fast they run these frames, they are really separated, not connected. And if wires are not connected, to jump to another example, that serve my point here, electricity stops flowing. Plus the film need an engine to move, a screen, etc. I guess is more simple us.
We are living beings, with body and soul (?) or visible components and invisibles ones, plus who knows what else. For science we are just organisms, and chemical reactions. For spiritual people we are Spirits acting in visible forms. I guess only Reflection will say something to us, directly, and not some usual second hand knowledge.
...except that when you take it all to the next level, all that atoms and stuff can be shown to be illusion as well.
Like a face carved into a pumpkin that may have an angry or scary or afraid expression, it’s not really a face at all. That’s what is meant by illusion.
Just as a movie is a series of still images projected in rapid succession so as to create the illusion of movement, likewise, the appearance of a continuous self is actuLly the coming together and falling apart, the arise and decay of billions of momentary events.
But the film itself is a composite, the wires are both rubber and metal, nothing “itself” exists. Every “thing” isn’t really a “thing” but is a temporary event, a brief gathering of components.
The illusion is that there is something that can be found which is an actual “me” that exists either within or outside of all these constantly changing events made of elements and so on. This “me” would be self-arisen (not relying on anything else to establish what it is) and would be unchanging, and not composed of anything other than its own essence.
This is the “me” that Buddhism refutes.
Buddhism doesn’t deny the very valid experience of “me” or the personal, mental experience of a truly existent self. Indeed, Buddha identifies that very experience as the source of suffering.
But, just as racism exists even though there’s really no such thing as “race”, but is merely based of perceptions, “me-ism” exists as the human condition based on the illusion of perceived characteristics.
...
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Re: Soul vs Consciousness?
wrong,Consciousness is only a function of the soul, as is digestion and growthMalcolm wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 3:47 pmI was simply pointing out how the largest Christian denomination in the world in world defines the word "soul." Their definition lines up perfectly with the atman refuted by the Buddha.smcj wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 3:17 pmThis is what I understand the Shravakayana and subsequent Mahayana doctrines reject as unaware and incorrect assumptions....to appropriate without itself being appropriated by anything else, to be the genuine owner of a certain limited section of reality (the stream of consciousness), this is to be a free and sovereign (though finite) personality, a self-conscious, spiritual substance in the language of Catholic metaphysics.
“Personality” is the current configuration of karmas that format fundamental energies, a confinement of those energies. It is not the essence of a being. Liberation is a release from than confinement and subsequent spontaneous expression of those energies as Buddha Activity.
Or so it seems to me at this point in time.