Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
If our soul is not in the body, where is it?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
metta
which in my honest opinion is impossible to find out until the physical body dies.
There is Perception, but no Perceiver
There is Volition, but no Commander
There is Discerning, but no Discerner
There is Operation, but no Operator
there is only the verb without a subject.
to say that there is the Self is the same thing as asserting there is no self.
if coming from the non dual awareness. because then even that self is seen as empty.
lol so maybe i did answer my own doubt.
So what do you say to Christians who believe every word of the Bible?
What do you say to Muslims who believe every word in the Koran?
As Taiyaki indicated, in my view you are clinging to something that you see as a FACT, even though you cannot prove that it's true.
It is okay for you to have that view, but it is not an open-minded view.
What do you mean when you say awareness? Is that like a conglomeration of perception and consciousness?
Also, to say that there is a self is NOT the same thing as saying there is not a self.
if you firmly realize right view, then you can assert all views and no views. you can say there is a soul or there isn't a soul. and you can say there is no soul and there is no no soul. if one doesn't cling to any view, all views are accepted.
but when you want to get down to practicality then it might just be better to say there is no soul. but first understanding that asserting such finite view has a conditional function, rather than some ultimately truth. because ultimate truth is non dualistic. relative truth is these words we use. conventions. language. they are all pointers to the sweet not knowing.
self is in relation to the other. if there is only you or Self. then there is no other.
so to say that there is only Self is the same as saying there is no self.
as long as you see that self or no self is empty and impermanent then you win. then you can assert that there is only You or Self, which is consciousness itself. it's not that you yourself are consciousness. consciousness just is. and also consciousness is empty and dependent on various elements coming together.
see what i am getting at?
How do you define "thinking?"
everything is what it is. acceptance of suffering and non suffering is true freedom.
that is evident when one is grounded in the reality of awareness. mind moves naturally. when suffering comes, we label it suffering. we attach to suffering. we desire the opposite, we resist the suffering. when we accept the suffering as it is then we can see suffering as it is. impermanent.
thus when we cut thinking by not attaching to thinking or mind. we are free. because then we see reality as it is. reality as it is, is just as it is. there is no clinging to suffering or no suffering. thus we totally experience suffering and joy without grasping. as soon as we resist or grasp suffering and joy persists. when we just watch with awareness they come and go. there is nothing to hold onto.
thus don't attach to views or opinions or assumptions or beliefs. they all come and go. what is true is what is true right now. look and see for yourself. if you don't attach to thinking, then there is no suffering but there is.
at the moment, it is just like Russell's teapot and the god argument.
a realist will look at the situation and say, "i see no proof of god, therefore i disbelieve."
but a believer will say, "you don't have anything disproving god either, therefore i believe."
and Russell would say, "well, i believe that a teapot orbits the sun, and you have no way of disproving it, therefore it must be so!"
the point being, not being able to disprove something isn't a good enough argument when there is no real proof supporting the claim either. i think this is exactly why the topic of a soul falls under the group of things that the buddha said are best not to argue/ponder about. you will never solve it, not scientifically so. and on a side note, i felt a lot lighter after i stopped thinking of myself as a permanent fixture in this universe. it may still be so, but i don't adhere to the belief that it is just because it cannot be disproven. all i know is what i have experienced, and i definitely have not experienced a soul.
what part of my statement do you disagree with? it seems you were disagreeing with the existence of a soul and not my post. i wasn't asserting that there is a soul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliché#Thought-terminating_clich.C3.A9 This cycle of suffering is itself a source of suffering. The Buddhist path is not about "accepting" suffering and just going with it. That sounds more like Taoism. Buddhism is about "the cessation of suffering." The 3rd noble truth. Are you saying that if we want to escape the cycle of samsara we just have to induce brain-death? Braindead people do not exibit any form of thought construction.
Also, the calming of mental fabrications is part of Jhana (as explained in the Anapanasati sutta.) The Buddha has stated that this, in itself, is not liberation.
i was disagreeing with it in it's entirety, that to deny the existence of a soul is the same as to accept the existence. to me, i understood what you said as one belief was just as valid as the other, which i disagree with for the reason stated above... but, perhaps i have misunderstood your meaning. i didn't actually think were asserting the existence of a soul. now i feel like i'm just talking... haha. cheers!
only one of these are right based on the correct circumstance. right now the sky is blue.
you say the sky is red. if i attach to my view that the sky is blue, then i suffer.
if i don't attach then i can accept your view that the sky is red. for you it might be red, how would i know otherwise? i only know my own experience of the sky, which i assume is blue.
i am not brain dead. i just accept all views are wrong thus they are all right. i accept the suffering of this world, thus i can transform it into compassionate action. if you don't hold onto suffering then it has no power. suffering is a concept. we give it power by clinging. don't cling to thinking and then you're free.
Such an analogy does not apply to the 1st noble truth. Life is Dukkha. Life is unsatisfactory. This truth transcends such notions as perception, view, belief, etc.
"I just accept all views are wrong thus all views are right"
i hope you find that truth one day and free yourself.
I don't necessarily think that the guy who burns paper and the guy who pulls bricks is real. In fact, I doubt that. But I have no doubt about the ability to willingly generate body heat to dry or heat towels.
It's your opinion that nothing supernatural can exist. But remember a few hundred years ago main stream science believed the Earth was also flat. Because they were stuck in their ways of fundamentalism. I am actually 100 percent sure Chi and spirits exist, but it's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of me actually having made the effort to seek it out to see if it was fact or fake. Some of it is fake, some of it is real, it's that simple. Anyone who is fearless, has good awareness and an open mind can seek out chi and actually learn it is real. You can feel it. It is mostly like electricity, it can burn, it can shock, it can even be formed into a ball. It's very distinct.
Here is a video of a Qigong master taking out a normal news paper and setting it on fire (didn't look like flash paper to me). It's after one minute, but the whole video is worth watching.
So that documentary made me more interested in Qi. Now, I'm wondering, what is correct mindset when proceeding? If you go in seeking to learn how to harness Qi, is that correct? Or should we have alternate intentions with Qi as a side-effect?
I have a recording I use to make chi balls if I wanted to lure a spirit. But it's mostly an emotional energy that the ball is made of rather than full on electricity. To manipulate energy in a way where you can actually feel the electricity and the matter it takes a good teacher. I do not know of any teacher that teaches that online. Usually it's a mix of breathing and also a form you follow, a lot like Taichi.
I would also recommend watching Doo Wai. He is a very genuine Qigong/Kung Fu master I got to learn from a few times. He's the real deal. But of course what he teaches online is only just the tip of the iceberg compared to his classes at his kung fu school.
Your best bet would be to look up Qigong classes in your area and try them to see which one works for you.
The correct mindset when going to learn Qigong is to be completely relaxed and completely aware. You expect nothing at all, but you do your best exactly as the teacher says. Eventually you will either feel the energy or you won't. Most people learn Qigong to heal. But I did it mostly for fun and also to test it. To see if I could actually feel the energy. Some exercises will invoke energy, some others will not.
There is a lot of superstitions in this that aren't always true, but that doesn't mean it's all fake because it isn't. There are forms that genuinely invoke energy. So it's a quest of exploring what works for you. You may also learn something that didn't work at first does work, just in different ways.
Of course it will pay off if you keep doing it though. Most good Qigong teachers teach some great meditation that enhances plenty of things for you. There are plenty of health benefits to learning Qigong. It's a lot like meditation and yoga, just Qigong is how you learn how to invoke and manipulate that life force energy that is connected to the soul and to other spirits.
The main thing required to become good at Qigong is to find a good teacher.
Please tell me or show me where someone has declared Chi/Ki/Prana to be a 'supernatural' force....
I assert - exactly as you do - that Chi is part of a physical process.
Just as some are more mentally agile than others, just as some are more physically agile than others, with practice, some can manipulate this physical process better than others.
Where's the problem?
Do you simply object to this physical process being given a name and nature?
More importantly, I really don't care what your opinion is. it's your right to hold an opinion.
I do care how you put it across, and in what tone you respond to others.
keep it respectful, polite and civil - or keep it shut.
Got it?
This is all beyond me, and I wouldn't really claim it to be true or false because I really don't know. And those who blindly hold it up, you don't know. And those who say it doesn't exist, you don't know either. I would like to try experience it for myself though, at least just to know if it's real or not. I like to keep my mind open about things. If it can be used for healing, then that would be fantastic too.
It seems in some of your writings as if you mix lots of other Asian philosophies/practice into Buddhism...which may not be a problem, but which still doesn't make those other philosophies and practice Buddhism.
One thing I've noticed in this particular Buddhist forum (more so than some others) is that quite a few posters fairly consistently bring up statements like, "science supports Buddhism", "science is parallel to Buddhism", "Buddhists think more scientifically", etc. (all somewhat paraphrased for briefness).
If I could separate posts into a new thread, I think I would do just that.
perhaps it might be wise to either close this thread (depending on whether the OP is content with responses) or come back to topic, and take the discussion of Chi and what it is, elsewhere.
Closed, until OP contact.