Do You Think The Buddha Ever Really Existed?

Discussion in 'Buddhism' started by ChinaCatSunflower02, Nov 17, 2015.

  1. ChinaCatSunflower02

    ChinaCatSunflower02 Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    130
    Well this is where it gets confusing. But you would agree that there is something present in one incarnation that's there in the next. There must be something that gets reborn. What this is is hard to say, but I would call it the Soul. What the Soul looks like or can be described as is rather difficult.
     
  2. BlackBillBlake

    BlackBillBlake resigned HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    1,543
    I would say there is a soul.
     
  3. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,736
    Likes Received:
    13,762
    You would have to read the various texts. Once you have read one, we could discuss it.

    The Surangama Sutra is good, the Lankavatara, Awakening of Faith, Nagarjuna's Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness, anything by D.T. Susuki, etc.
     
  4. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,736
    Likes Received:
    13,762
    In Buddhism the self is a combination of physical and mental forces and energies. The self is the experience of feelings, ideas, thoughts, habits, attitude, etc. There is no permanent unchanging entity that we could call a self or soul. These feelings, ideas, etc. are constantly changing, they never remain the same for even two consecutive moments. Each moment they arise and die. So every moment we are born and die, and yet we continue. No feeling, idea, or thought lasts forever, and no combination of the same can endure forever. The "self" is constantly changing, yet remains the same aggregation of differing experiences.

    These experiences rely on the energy of the will, volition, desire, etc. to exist. When the body dies the energy that animated it does not die, as energy can not be destroyed.

    As that continuity exists from moment to moment as the life force that binds the aggregates together, so to after death the life force continues on and is reborn as a new individual set, or aggregate, of experiences.

    The example is given of a child of six growing to be a man of sixty. Though the man of sixty is the same person as the child of six, still, he is a different person. The series continues.

    Likewise at death the force that holds the aggregates together that make a man are dispersed and then reunite. It is not the same person and yet not another, as the force is the same.
    Just as the moment between thoughts has no time, so the moment between life and death also are timeless. As a new thought depends on the last and is part of the same series, so to a new life depends on the last and is also a part of the same series.

    It is all energy, no separate God, no eternal soul, flow and flux, energy patterns ...

     
    3 people like this.
  5. ChinaCatSunflower02

    ChinaCatSunflower02 Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    130
    For the record, I have made that argument regarding how energy can neither be created nor destroyed in relation to what happens once you die, only to be dismissed as Quantum pseudo-science.

    Also, I still feel that your description would describe a Soul. Like you said, a person is neither the same nor really different from when he was six until he was sixty. But there's still something about him that is HIM, just like in reincarnation into different lives. You're still implying an unchanging aspect that all the changes are happening TO, and this unchangingness I would call the Soul. Whether there are one or many souls ultimately I can't say.

    There's still a backdrop against which all the changes are happening. And you say there is no eternal Soul, but are also saying energy can neither be created nor destroyed, which would imply Eternity. And wouldn't a Soul be the gathering together or the force that binds together these different energies? If there is no Soul, then how does the energy leave one body and completely reconstitute into another body? Why wouldn't it just dissipate into infinite space?
     
  6. Moonglow181

    Moonglow181 Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    16,175
    Likes Received:
    4,916
    yes, i think along these same lines, although, I do not call myself a Buddhist or anything else, but a free thinker.
     
    1 person likes this.
  7. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,736
    Likes Received:
    13,762
    In Buddhism there is no permanent anything. Nothing is permanent, so if you consider a soul to be permanent you are advancing something that is not Buddhism.
    In Buddhism everything changes. The boy of six is not the man of sixty. He has changed, if he had not changed he would still be the boy of six.

    So change always occurs, but the aggregate self is a continuous flow of mental experiences, due to the energy of life each new experience is engendered by the preceding experience so that a continuous flow is achieved. The new experience develops from the past experience and so on back to birth. So that looking back, we see the continuous development of an ever changing causal stream; which is never permanent as it always changes. And the stream will appear to be continuous, a continuous being.

    At death, the life force dissipates, it isn't destroyed, it just is not concentrated in one particular flowing casual stream. Like an eddy in a still pool of water that dissipates when its energy is spent. However, the energy is still present in the pool and can reform into another eddy when the conditions are right.

    If we envision a multitude of these eddies being born and dying over time, and each eddy is different due to the different conditions that allowed them to form, we may watch one eddy die and then another form with characteristics that are similar to the one that just died. It appears similar because the energy of the dead eddy has found conditions that allow it to reform into a new eddy. The same energy has reformed into a new eddy which is different and has no connection to the dead one, yet it appears similar.



    There is no infinite space without matter and energy, they are all the same, so the energy can never truly dissipate into nothing, it will always flow and when conditions are right it will appear as a "new" "object", or being.

    Now at the beginning I said that in Buddhism nothing is permanent, but then I said that energy always exists. Energy is just the term we use for what is beyond arising, enduring, and ending. Being beyond arising, enduring, and ending it is outside of temporarily and therefore can not really be said to always exist as there is no always outside of time. Energy is just a term for the indescribable what is going on.

    That's my understanding anyway.
     
  8. Karen_J

    Karen_J Visitor

    So very similar to the point of view of modern science on this subject.
     
  9. His Eden

    His Eden Queen of Mean

    Messages:
    1,030
    Likes Received:
    161
    Siddhartha Gautama (the 'original' Buddha) was very likely a real person. What he learned, and how Buddhism came to be, that is a bit more difficult to prove. Like every other aspect of the history of civilization, rumors spread, truth gets embellished or distorted, details get omitted, and the list goes on. As for the beliefs and philosophies of Buddhism, well considering I am Buddhist, chances are pretty good that I agree with them. I do believe change is constant, everything has a cause and effect, and that no one living thing is better than the other (The Three Truths, roughly). I, however, do not live and breathe to reach Enlightenment. I live to enjoy each moment, of each day. Enlightenment is rarely achieved, and never achieved if one does nothing but live their life to try to reach it. So, I consider each day a gift, and stop to appreciate the beauty of nature; be it a majestic waterfall, or an intricate spiders web...they are both equally amazing and beautiful to me.

    I respect all nature, and do my best to live in harmony with it. (Yep, I am someone who rarely squishes a bug....and would rather catch a spider in my home, and find it a nice home outside, as opposed to killing it) I learn from my animal family instead of demanding they live my way with no regard to how they think, or feel. My horse allowing me to ride her is a cherished gift she has chosen to give me, not my right because I am human, and it is her job. I do not 'own' my furry family members, I am blessed to share a life with them. I provide them food, shelter, and other care and they provide me with companionship, sometimes protection, and so much more. It is a mutually beneficial relationship, with love and respect as the foundation.

    Am I right? Maybe I am, maybe I am not...but, I am right for me and how I choose to live my life. I do not seek the approval of others, or demand that they believe as I do. I respect that others have their own beliefs, and opinions. Who am I to tell them that they are wrong. Just because I do not worship as they do, does not mean either of us is right, or wrong. We are individuals, and choose our own path in this lifetime. I choose to walk mine with nature, with respect and admiration. It has worked well for me, and my family.

    I cannot say with absolute certainty that Buddha existed, or that his teachings came from him, or if they we stories told that over time became 'truth'. I just agree with many of the philosophies and practices of Buddhism because they sync well with how I have chosen to live my life. Isn't that what causes many to choose their faith? They agree with it because it fits their lifestyle and way of thinking?
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. BlackBillBlake

    BlackBillBlake resigned HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    1,543
    That's how I understand the Buddhist view, based on what I've read and heard.

    Not, as claimed by some, the same as either Christianity or Hinduism with regard to the existence or non existence of the soul.
     
  11. ChinaCatSunflower02

    ChinaCatSunflower02 Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    130
    In Buddhism there is no permanent anything. Nothing is permanent, so if you consider a soul to be permanent you are advancing something that is not Buddhism.
    In Buddhism everything changes. The boy of six is not the man of sixty. He has changed, if he had not changed he would still be the boy of six.

    Well wouldn't impermanence be a permanent in Buddhism?

    And wouldn't "he" be both the boy and the man? Isn't it HIM who has changed? There's still a permanence. Who he is. He might as well legally change his name every year if he is always changing identity in the way that you are saying. While I understand what you're saying about his ever-changing identity, it's still happening to a permanent backdrop.

    There is no infinite space without matter and energy, they are all the same, so the energy can never truly dissipate into nothing, it will always flow and when conditions are right it will appear as a "new" "object", or being.

    There are no objects and energy without space as the ever non-changing backdrop.
     
  12. ChinaCatSunflower02

    ChinaCatSunflower02 Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    130
    Actually they are very similar in regards to Enlightenment in Buddhism and finding the Atman in Hinduism and achieving Gnosis in Christian Mysticism.
     
  13. BlackBillBlake

    BlackBillBlake resigned HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    1,543
    The Buddhists don't believe in the Atman - Meagain has explained that very well I thought.
     
  14. ChinaCatSunflower02

    ChinaCatSunflower02 Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    130
    I meant to say Moksha and Enlightenment...Hindus merely just add in the concept of Atman once Moksha is attained.
     
  15. BlackBillBlake

    BlackBillBlake resigned HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    1,543
    Both seek liberation from the cycle of birth and death - samsara, that's true. But many of the underlying concepts are different, and I am of the view that the differences are important.

    Also liberation is conceived of differently by different schools of Hinduism, let alone Buddhism.

    I don't have much time right now - I'll try to say a bit more later.
     
  16. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,736
    Likes Received:
    13,762
    Impermanence is referring to the notion of objects which in Buddhism exist on a common level but when analyzed are found to be interdependent, related to, everything else with no permanence, or uniqueness, of their own.

    The question is, "What is this 'He' you are referring to?"
    Who, or what, is "He". He, or the self, is only a series of events related casually one upon the other that when viewed from the present to the past can be seen to be related. Each event is a separate event, predicated on the preceding event.
    "He", or the self, is an illusion similar to the motion seen in an animated cell cartoon.

    Now, this doesn't negate the fact that there is an observer of this illusion.

    On one level there are objects, as you will quickly discover if you walk in front of a truck moving at sixty miles an hour, however the truck object and you, the person object, are dependent on everything else in the universe and they can not exist on their own.
    Likewise with objects and space, each depend on the other.
     
  17. ChinaCatSunflower02

    ChinaCatSunflower02 Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    130
    The question is, "What is this 'He' you are referring to?"
    Who, or what, is "He". He, or the self, is only a series of events related casually one upon the other that when viewed from the present to the past can be seen to be related. Each event is a separate event, predicated on the preceding event.

    Can be seen by whom or what?

    Now, this doesn't negate the fact that there is an observer of this illusion.

    which would be the ever-present eternal backdrop that I'm speaking of.
     
  18. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,736
    Likes Received:
    13,762
    Hinduism and Buddhism, in my mind, are very similar, but require a very careful analysis to unite in agreement.

    The Atman in Hinduism is Brahman who has divided himself into small independent eternal units. The Atman is the eternal self which is part of Brahman. Your self is Brahman "hiding" in an individual identity. Once you learn your true identity you find that you are part of the whole.

    In Buddhism there is no self. There is no dividing of the whole into individual parts. Everything is interdependent with everything else. The self is only an illusion brought about by ignorance of the interaction of this interdependance. Objects, or parts are seen because the discerning mind defines borders.

    Gnosis has several meanings, but in my understanding there is always a self which either attains knowledge of a separate God or may even unite with that God. but there is always a self separate from God involved.
     
  19. ChinaCatSunflower02

    ChinaCatSunflower02 Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    130
    So basically they are all slightly different viewpoints and perspectives on the same thing.

    Buddhism has no separation, Hinduism has hidden separation and uniting into the whole, and Gnosis is perhaps more pronounced with the separation and the uniting than Hinduism. One guy has a whole pie and sees the pie, himself, and his eating of the pie as one movement, the second guy has a pie cut up but still sees it as one pie and one eating, and the third guy cuts the pie up and takes one slice and walks away from the rest of the pie.

    A sloppy example, but merely illustrating that it's all the same thing.

    So what's the problem? Why must there just be one path? I should start a whole thread on just that question alone. My main point here, however, is that Buddhism isn't special.
     
  20. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,736
    Likes Received:
    13,762
    That is the question.

    A backdrop that is right in front of you.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice