• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Reaction score

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • I have never heard it put that way, but it makes sense. Pure consciousness is Brahman. When it becomes limited in a Jiva I guess you could call it awareness.
    I've also heard both perspectives. It's hard for me to say definitively as there are many perspectives. I would probably argue that awareness is a product of your consciousness. Like there is one consciousness behind all things and awareness is it's product and the ability of that consciousness to "be." I hope this helps you. I'm sorry my answer isn't more in depth.
    I am curious, what drove you to Saivism and Shiva? I am considering Sanatana Dharma myself :D
    "The self is all there is. Bright is the self. Luminous and still, free from sin and pure. He it is who holds the Cosmos together."- Isha Upanishad

    I would have to say that awareness is one's ability to be aware of the self,
    consciousness is one's ability to be aware of others.
    I decided to settle upon this thought because i asked myself whether we are conscious while we sleep, and i do not think we are. but we usually are aware of ourselfs and experience our dreams.
    Thank you for finding me! I hope you're always successful in your search for knowledge of the Universe and the Lord. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to ask. :)

    Much Peace and Love,
    Actually, I don't have any definitive opinion on consciousness/awareness just yet, as that aspect is a bit too metaphysical for my taste.
    Adapted is a more accurate term than converted. It's been about a year and a half, actually. I grew up in an agnostic household.
    I thought Tathagatha-Nature was a later addition to Theravada, and Boddhisattva Nature was the Mahayana one?

    So anatta is there is no physical or mental self, but there may be a self? I don't even know what the term self was during the Buddha's day that he denied. Was it a sense of separation, or something more?

    If you ever read the original document where it says what Buddha said to the people, kindly send it me so I can check the word. :)

    Regarding Nibbana not being the same as Brahman, is there a reason why you think this is so? How do you think they are different from one another?

    By the way; were you born into Buddhism, or did you convert? If you converted, what drew you towards the Dhamma?
    Hiya Upasaka, I just started a Tips topic in the Meditation "social group". I'd love to hear any ideas you have about basic tips for beginners. My thinking is that we can wet peoples appetites and then move them slowly into the more arcane esoteric crap. Interested?
    So in effect there is no physical or mental self, but there may be a self?

    Do you think the emphasis on anatta has become the believe in no-soul now? Where do you think the concept of Tathagatha nature came from? Do you have any knowledge of a particular reason why Buddha did not mention about the afterlife, and how does it compare with the oft-quoted "There is, monks, an unborn ..........." etc?

    And do you know the specific word in the stories where it talks about three people coming to the Buddha and asking about God (first one he says yes, second no, third silence). Do you know what word the people use? Such as, was it Bhagavan, Ishvara, Brahman, what was it?

    Thanks again for answering :D
    Great, (lol, big mistake, I love asking questions :D!) I already have one!

    Regarding this post, could you elaborate a little?

    I'm very interested in the following: Buddha said, where is the self? But, Buddha also never said that there was no-self, <snip>... dont stay within self or no-self. But in the middle.

    What is the middle of self and no self? What is defined as 'self' in Budddhist terminology, in your opinion, to begin with? Do you believe in the soul? I've heard that in Samyutta Nikaya (sp?) that Buddha does not deny the existence of the soul - so what is not-self?
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…