Buddha nature vs Soul

If you're new to the forum or new to Buddhism, this is the best place for your questions. Responses require moderator approval before they are visible.
User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by Matt J » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:15 pm

I think non-clinging naturally arises the more that we see there is nothing fixed, solid, or enduring about anything. The lack of any fixed points at all also eliminates the basis for any lines, divisions, or boundaries. Everything is connected and in a state of constant transformation. A self would need a fixed, solid, or enduring base upon which to erect itself upon, and then also need a strong boundary to distinguish it from non-self. The more we examine whatever arises, the more we see it is unstable and dreamlike.

The same goes with any mental concept--- manifest vs unmanifest, sensory and non-sensory experience, etc. It is like trying to draw a line on the air or the water--- there is no stable basis for line drawing or boundary making.
Sherab wrote: The whole point of the teachings on emptiness is to teach us that there is no point in clinging to any phenomena, be that a person and relationship with that person, an object considered valuable in a particular society, a powerful position in society, etc. In short, the experience of any or all phenomena is not to be relied upon. Phenomena are what is experienced via the senses, including the mental sense. What one should strive for and rely upon is direct knowledge, a knowledge not mediated via any of the senses, a non-dual knowledge.
The Great Way is not difficult
If only there is no picking or choosing
--- Xin Xin Ming

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1056
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Buddha nature vs Soul

Post by Sherab » Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:44 pm

Matt J wrote:I think non-clinging naturally arises the more that we see there is nothing fixed, solid, or enduring about anything. The lack of any fixed points at all also eliminates the basis for any lines, divisions, or boundaries. Everything is connected and in a state of constant transformation. A self would need a fixed, solid, or enduring base upon which to erect itself upon, and then also need a strong boundary to distinguish it from non-self. The more we examine whatever arises, the more we see it is unstable and dreamlike.

The same goes with any mental concept--- manifest vs unmanifest, sensory and non-sensory experience, etc. It is like trying to draw a line on the air or the water--- there is no stable basis for line drawing or boundary making.
Sherab wrote: The whole point of the teachings on emptiness is to teach us that there is no point in clinging to any phenomena, be that a person and relationship with that person, an object considered valuable in a particular society, a powerful position in society, etc. In short, the experience of any or all phenomena is not to be relied upon. Phenomena are what is experienced via the senses, including the mental sense. What one should strive for and rely upon is direct knowledge, a knowledge not mediated via any of the senses, a non-dual knowledge.
You stated that "The whole point of basic emptiness teachings are that there is no solid, enduring, ongoing, bounded entities of any kind, whether these body parts, sentient beings, objects, or anything else."

I responded by stating that the whole point of the teachings on emptiness was that the relative is not to be relied upon and that one should rely on direct knowledge.

I have no idea regarding the relevance of your reply to my response of your earlier comment on the point of the teachings on emptiness.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests