Unprofitable Questions (Soul)?

[rockyysdt]

For the purposes of keeping other threads on topic, I thought I'd pose some important questions, to aid my own path as well as seek guidance.

The Buddha spoke of "Unprofitable Questions":

Should anyone say that he does not wish to lead the holy life under the Blessed One, unless the Blessed One first tells him, whether the world is eternal or temporal, finite or infinite, whether the life principal is identical with the body or something different, , whether the Perfect One continues after death, and so on, such a man would die, ere the Perfect One could tell him all this.

Self-illusion may reveal itself as "Eternalism" or Eternity-belief or Annihilationism or Annihilation-belief.

For whether the theory exists, or whether it does not exist, that the world is eternal, or temporal, or finite, or infinite-certainly, there is birth, there is decay, there is death, there is sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair, the extinction of which, attainable even in this present life, I make known unto you.

Above, is the Buddha saying that needing to know if there is Eternalism or Annihilationism not the way.

Verily, such a man would die, ere he could adequately learn all this.

Should one explore the notion and existence of Soul?

How can one ever know?

Or is it better to travel with the knowledge that there may or may not be a higher self (permanent, unconditioned)?

In other words, is dwelling on Anatta = Soul unhelpful to ones practice and does it constitute attachment to Ego?

Would traveling through life with the belief that there is an enduring soul/spirit/higher self result in attachment which would hinder progress to Awakening?

How would ones practice differ in each case?

Edited October 1, 2013 by rockyysdt

[ccarbaugh]

Yes. creating a "soul, higher-self, spirit,..." is all just a product of thought, (and ego) and therefore can only be a product of one's conditioning.

It creates an artificial division where in actuality, there is none. Anytime there is division, there is conflict.

Edited October 1, 2013 by ccarbaugh

[fabianfred]

That is why we should not get caught up in debate and thought about anatta... just understand the basic buddhist reasoning....and then get on with the practice.

If your meditation takes you to the stage of Nama rupa you will then 'Know' by experience the truth and have no need for debate and study.

[rockyysdt]

That is why we should not get caught up in debate and thought about anatta... just understand the basic buddhist reasoning....and then get on with the practice.

If your meditation takes you to the stage of Nama rupa you will then 'Know' by experience the truth and have no need for debate and study.

Can you get to the "Nama Rupa": stage if you travel with the belief that there is a "higher self"?

[fabianfred]

Not sure about your interpretation of 'Higher self'.... but I certainly beleive that there is a continual 'flow' of consciousness from life to life...but continually changing..... so no permanent soul.

[rockyysdt]

Not sure about your interpretation of 'Higher self'.... but I certainly beleive that there is a continual 'flow' of consciousness from life to life...but continually changing..... so no permanent soul.

Thanks Fred.

What I meant by "Higher Self" was soul/something permanent/unconditioned associated with an individual.

[ChrisB87]

Not sure about your interpretation of 'Higher self'.... but I certainly beleive that there is a continual 'flow' of consciousness from life to life...but continually changing..... so no permanent soul.

Thanks Fred.

What I meant by "Higher Self" was soul/something permanent/unconditioned associated with an individual.

I am far from expert, but i highly doubt any notion of "self" will do you good on the path.

[rockyysdt]

Not sure about your interpretation of 'Higher self'.... but I certainly beleive that there is a continual 'flow' of consciousness from life to life...but continually changing..... so no permanent soul.

The problem with your belief is that "the continual flow of consciousness from life to life...but continually changing" ends with Awakening (Enlightenment) as the cycle of Re Birth ends.

The "permanent soul." relates to what is left after "flow of consciousness from life to life" ends?

Edited October 30, 2013 by rockyysdt

[RandomSand]

As I understand the language used; this is the subject to study in relation to your question ...

बोधि (as causal mechanism).

I think you need to read sutras concerning Tathāgata for the actual teachings.

Diamond Sūtra

All composed things are like a dream,
a phantom, a drop of dew, a flash of lightning.
That is how to meditate on them,
that is how to observe them

[rockyysdt]

I think you need to read sutras concerning Tathāgata for the actual teachings.

This thread is considerably dated.

It was started before my relative knowledge of Citta.

Citta, rather than Soul was the word I was looking for.

Although completely different as conventionally known, they both however have a common feature (permanence & association to a person).

Quote: Ven. Maha Boowa.

I turned my attention to investigating my own past births.My goodness! If the corpses of this one individual were scattered across the length and breadth of Thailand, there would not be an empty space left. Just this one individual! Imagine the amount of time it took to be born and to die that many times! It would be impossible to count all the births and deaths. There were far, far too many to even try. My thoughts also spread to all the innumerable corpses of each person in the world. Each and every citta of each and every living being has exactly the same history of repeated births and deaths. Everyone is equal in this respect. Stretching back indefinitely, everyone’s past is crowded with countless corpses. It was an unbearable sight.

Edited August 16, 2014 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

Could you provide the reference to the passage you are quoting so that we can look at it in context and in different translations.

Short answer to "Should one explore the notion and existence of Soul?" though it's a bit like asking "Should one explore the notion and existence of Santa?" as neither are given any mention in the Buddhas teachings. If we assume though that soul = atta, and I'm not sure that's the case, then it's only mentioned in a negative light as something conceptually fabricated that we shouldn't identify with or cling to.

[Brucenkhamen]

stage of Nama rupa

I recall asking you for clarification on this some time ago, and never got a straight answer.

I assume you mean Namarupa Pariccheda Nana which is the first vipassana nana, explained here http://www.vipassanadhura.com/sixteen.html#onea

I would have thought this is a pretty basic insight knowledge and most people would come to an understanding of this within their first few retreats if they are doing it right.

I note that these nanas were not taught by the Buddha but arose in the commentaries and that most teachers don't teach them as such so because they don't want meditators to anticipate what they will experience.

[Brucenkhamen]

This thread is considerably dated.

oops

[rockyysdt]

Could you provide the reference to the passage you are quoting so that we can look at it in context and in different translations.

Short answer to "Should one explore the notion and existence of Soul?" though it's a bit like asking "Should one explore the notion and existence of Santa?" as neither are given any mention in the Buddhas teachings. If we assume though that soul = atta, and I'm not sure that's the case, then it's only mentioned in a negative light as something conceptually fabricated that we shouldn't identify with or cling to.

Arahattamagga Arahattaphala - The Path of Arahantship - Ven. Maha Boowa. Page 77.

http://www.luangta.eu/site/books/book10_arahatta/Arahattamagga.pdf

The word we are looking at is Citta.

Soul & Citta share the characteristics of permanence & individuality.

If the personal experience Arahants such as the Ven Maha Boowa, & Mae Chee Kaew are accepted then they are confirmation of this.

Edited August 17, 2014 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

Could you provide the reference to the passage you are quoting so that we can look at it in context and in different translations.

Short answer to "Should one explore the notion and existence of Soul?" though it's a bit like asking "Should one explore the notion and existence of Santa?" as neither are given any mention in the Buddhas teachings. If we assume though that soul = atta, and I'm not sure that's the case, then it's only mentioned in a negative light as something conceptually fabricated that we shouldn't identify with or cling to.

Arahattamagga Arahattaphala - The Path of Arahantship - Ven. Maha Boowa. Page 77.

http://www.luangta.eu/site/books/book10_arahatta/Arahattamagga.pdf

The word we are looking at is Citta.

Soul & Citta share the characteristics of permanence & individuality.

If the personal experience Arahants such as the Ven Maha Boowa, & Mae Chee Kaew are accepted then they are confirmation of this.

Thanks for the link Rocky ... a brilliant read <3

[rockyysdt]

Thanks Fred.

Yes, I found it very inspirational.

Special thanks to TRD for the initial link to the book.

Edited August 19, 2014 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

Not sure about your interpretation of 'Higher self'.... but I certainly beleive that there is a continual 'flow' of consciousness from life to life...but continually changing..... so no permanent soul.

The problem with your belief is that "the continual flow of consciousness from life to life...but continually changing" ends with Awakening (Enlightenment) as the cycle of Re Birth ends.

The "permanent soul." relates to what is left after "flow of consciousness from life to life" ends?

regarding that last bit "what is left after "flow of consciousness from life to life" ends"

who says it ends?

IMHO once we attain Nibbana certainly there is an end to rebirth in the 31 realms of Samsara, but I'm sure there is a continuing existence in a state (or dimension) far beyond our present (unenlightened) understanding.

Sure, the Buddha would not try to confuse people by mentioning something far beyond our capability to comprehend, but that doesn't mean such a thing is not possible.

When asked if there was existence beyond Nibbana he merely replied " existence does not apply ... non-existence does not apply..." because the Buddha would not answer unfruitful questions about things we are unable to comprehend.

[trd]

If there was no continuation of some kind, that would mean the end result of nibbana is extinction. On several occasions Buddha made it clear that he was not teaching nihilism. By saying "non-existence does not apply...." it is made clear there is no extinguishing of being. By saying existence does not apply is a way of differentiating between form and the formless. Existence as understood by Buddha's followers would mean that which has form, which includes individual consciousness, mind and perception of wordly objects, all of which are impermanent. Buddha was referring to formless existence, that which is unborn. Just as an individual wave rises from the ocean and merges back into the ocean, the formless ocean ever remains. Nothing has been created or destroyed.

[rockyysdt]

If there was no continuation of some kind, that would mean the end result of nibbana is extinction. On several occasions Buddha made it clear that he was not teaching nihilism. By saying "non-existence does not apply...." it is made clear there is no extinguishing of being. By saying existence does not apply is a way of differentiating between form and the formless. Existence as understood by Buddha's followers would mean that which has form, which includes individual consciousness, mind and perception of wordly objects, all of which are impermanent. Buddha was referring to formless existence, that which is unborn. Just as an individual wave rises from the ocean and merges back into the ocean, the formless ocean ever remains. Nothing has been created or destroyed.

Hi TRD.

I fully embrace what you say.

My conditioned and impermanent state can't help but think that, that which is impermant and conditioned (me, I, that which has form, which includes individual consciousness, mind and perception of wordly objects ), has no awareness of the formless.

It ( (me, I, that which has form, which includes individual consciousness, mind and perception of wordly objects ) will also be destroyed at the passing of its body.

As the hidden formless is not known to it (me, I, that which has form, which includes individual consciousness, mind and perception of wordly objects ), unless awakening takes place in this life, it will never be known to it.

My I (me, I, that which has form, which includes individual consciousness, mind and perception of wordly objects ) feels it is carrying a permanent and unconditioned entity which it will never know nor experience.

Is my I (me, I, that which has form, which includes individual consciousness, mind and perception of wordly objects ) making a valid point?

Naturally I'm still commited to practice and incrimental improvement along the path to the ultimate goal.

It's just that my I is curious.

Edited October 24, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

My conditioned and impermanent state can't help but think that, that which is impermant and conditioned (me, I, that which has form, which includes individual consciousness, mind and perception of wordly objects ), has no awareness of the formless.

Quite so. The formless is beyond the limitations of individual dualistic mind. Inquiry into the "I" will cause the "I" to dissolve into the expansiveness of formless awareness. It is not possible to have thoughts in that state.

It ( (me, I, that which has form, which includes individual consciousness, mind and perception of wordly objects ) will also be destroyed at the passing of its body.

That is an expression of fear born of the ego.

As the hidden formless is not known to it (me, I, that which has form, which includes individual consciousness, mind and perception of wordly objects ), unless awakening takes place in this life, it will never be known to it.

It sounds like a race against time! If it were true, this must be your first life because it would have been game over in the last one.

My I (me, I, that which has form, which includes individual consciousness, mind and perception of wordly objects ) feels it is carrying a permanent and unconditioned entity which it will never know nor experience.

This is merely a mental concept and cannot be real. So if you are carrying it, is it separate from you? How can the unconditioned be separate from anything or have any attribute such as being carried. Any feeling or idea about the unconditioned cannot be the unconditioned

Here is a video for you of Ramesh Balsekar, a devotee of Nisargadatta Maharaj. I just happened to stumble upon it again and somehow it seems entirely appropriate as part of my reply.

Edited October 24, 2014 by trd

[trd]

[VincentRJ]

Hi Rocky,

I think the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta, which I came across recently, is very relevant to your questions, as are Trd's explanations which are similar. (He and I must have been reading the same scriptures. )

Here's a translation from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html

I particularly like the analogy of the fire burning in front of one, as in the following extract of the conversation between Gotama and Vaccha.

"And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, 'This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"...I would reply, 'This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'"

"If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out'?"

"...yes..."

"And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning, dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)."

"Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply."

[rockyysdt]

Thank you for your insightful reply TRD.

I was particularly impressed by the Ramesh Balsekar's explanation of Awakening.

In terms of the "race against time", for me it's more about getting to a point where I'm able to overcome conditioned thoughts which lock me in to conditioned behavior.

The race for me is to be able to establish regular sitting practice and develop the skill which will bear fruit in terms of achieving personal experience.

Again, thank you for your wise teaching.

[rockyysdt]

Hi Rocky,

I think the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta, which I came across recently, is very relevant to your questions, as are Trd's explanations which are similar. (He and I must have been reading the same scriptures. )

Here's a translation from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html

I particularly like the analogy of the fire burning in front of one, as in the following extract of the conversation between Gotama and Vaccha.

"And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, 'This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"...I would reply, 'This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'"

"If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out'?"

"...yes..."

"And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning, dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)."

"Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply."

Thanks Vincent.

Very inspirational and dovetails into our discussion.

[rockyysdt]

This is merely a mental concept and cannot be real. So if you are carrying it, is it separate from you? How can the unconditioned be separate from anything or have any attribute such as being carried. Any feeling or idea about the unconditioned cannot be the unconditioned

Here is a video for you of Ramesh Balsekar, a devotee of Nisargadatta Maharaj. I just happened to stumble upon it again and somehow it seems entirely appropriate as part of my reply.

On one level I understand what Ramesh Balsekar is conveying but on another level I am puzzled.

He said:

After Enlightenment we remain the same imperfect human being.

If we are prone to quick anger, we are likely to remain that way.

If we keep making mistakes we'll continue to make the same mistakes.

If we don't like the company of some, we'll continue to dislike their company.

If we do not have special powers we will not attain these.

What Enlightenment will do for us is to allow us to live with peace of mind.

Total acceptance of oneself and harmonious relationship with others.

On the other hand, the process of Awakening includes attaining a state which is free from the three kleshas (ignorance, attachment and aversion).

There is an extensive list of such unwholesome kleshas which include afflictive mind states such as fear, hatred, anger, jealousy, anxiety, desire, depression & others.

Such mind states must have a huge negative impact on the mind/body and include gene activation/deactivation, hormone release or suppression in the body, shallow breathing, and many other factors.

Many negative outcomes such as compromised immune system, heart disease, premature aging, constipation, stress and other physical ailments are well documented.

Scientists are also finding that, even though we are genetically governed, environment has considerable power over gene activation/deactivation.

Genetically controlled outcomes are not fixed.

Shouldn't Awakened ones, as well as advanced practitioners who are either liberated or have diminished attachment to afflictive mind states have demonstrable improvement in their physical and behavioral state?

Edited October 31, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

If you look at the body of an arahant, you will see the body of an arahant. You will not see the arahant. If you pinch him, his body will feel pain. If he dances, sings, plays tennis, tells jokes, cries, you will still not see the arahant. If you see another arahant who prefers to climb mountains rather than dance, what is the difference? None. They are arahant.

When Ramana Maharshi was dying of cancer, his devotees pleaded with him not to leave them. He replied, "They say I am dying, but I am not going away. Where could I go? I am here."

[rockyysdt]

Agreed TRD.

Practice will not protect that which is impermanent from aging and death.

In terms of a healthy lifestyle which promotes well being and health, surely a regime which includes daily sitting & mindfulness practice with actual experience along the way should lead to remarkable physical/mental attributes.

Further, shouldn't one liberated from the three poisons display a demeanor free from speech without color.

That is free from anger, hatred, displeasure, impatience a d a host of others and possess a body free from further ravages of the effect of such klishas?

Edited October 31, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

Awakening does not confer any remarkable physical or mental attributes. Why should it? While it would be true to say that the peace of mind at the core of awakening does result in a "softer" kind of behaviour, it does not rule out the capability of displaying anger for instance. But you are free of it. There is no attachment to it. It is a myth to suggest that awakening results in the complete absence of any type of behaviour which can be construed as being negative. Why should speech have no colour? The relative field of existence is full of colours. An awakened being still exists in the relative and displays the full range of human behaviour. Except for three things. The behaviour just happens. There is no doer. There is direct knowledge that your true nature is unrelated to mind and body. So it is not helpful to speculate on behaviour. It is unfathomable.

Now you might say, does that mean if you are awakened you can go around robbing banks and killing people, but remain unattached from it. That would be a perfectly valid question since there are many stories of gurus who have abused their followers. But there can be no such possibility of such behaviours in the genuinly awakened because your true nature is unconditioned love which is also pure consciousness. Such behaviours simply cannot arise. That is not to say you cannot display anger when someone is acting inappropriately. But it doesn't leave an impression or attachment as a false identification of personal self but is seen as separate from beingness. That is freedom from the kleshas.

[rockyysdt]

Awakening does not confer any remarkable physical or mental attributes. Why should it? While it would be true to say that the peace of mind at the core of awakening does result in a "softer" kind of behaviour, it does not rule out the capability of displaying anger for instance. But you are free of it. There is no attachment to it. It is a myth to suggest that awakening results in the complete absence of any type of behaviour which can be construed as being negative. Why should speech have no colour? The relative field of existence is full of colours. An awakened being still exists in the relative and displays the full range of human behaviour. Except for three things. The behaviour just happens. There is no doer. There is direct knowledge that your true nature is unrelated to mind and body. So it is not helpful to speculate on behaviour. It is unfathomable.

Now you might say, does that mean if you are awakened you can go around robbing banks and killing people, but remain unattached from it. That would be a perfectly valid question since there are many stories of gurus who have abused their followers. But there can be no such possibility of such behaviours in the genuinly awakened because your true nature is unconditioned love which is also pure consciousness. Such behaviours simply cannot arise. That is not to say you cannot display anger when someone is acting inappropriately. But it doesn't leave an impression or attachment as a false identification of personal self but is seen as separate from beingness. That is freedom from the kleshas.

This is a major departure from my understanding.

I'd say it would also be a major concern with modern psychologists who have jumped on the Mindfulness/Meditation bandwagon in order to free their patients from psychological issues.

I was under the impression that due to heightened and super quick awareness the Awakened one can see the Skandha's as they flow/unfold and can intercept this before the mental formations take place.

And if mental formations do occur is quick enough to remain unattached and thus prevent corresponding action/reaction.

There is probably have considerable common klesha experience as well as quite a bit unique to each of us.

For example many go through life with considerable constant anxiety/fear whilst this may be quite foreign to others.

I have felt substantial reduction of anxiety during periods of entry level piti meditation.

I can only imagine how much further the reduction of anxiety must be like with regular diligent Mindfulness and Sitting practice.

These personal experiences do not seem to fit into the model being put forward above.

It also seems to suggest that we cannot change, that our genetic/conditioned roots have locked us into fixed lives in terms of our behavior and experiences.

Edited November 1, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

So the mental formations that constitute a desire for food do not come to the Buddha. Really?