I find myself in an interesting place

[Unveiled Artist]

You are new to Buddhism correct?
What @Buddha Dharma 's doubts are really about (I think, correct me if I am wrong) is on the question on the foundations of "Being-sense-awareness" and how it connects to the suffering-extinguishing or liberating "Root-existence awareness". Buddhism typically goes by the negative root, not saying much about foundations, and instead trying to cut through the processes and false clinging that cause suffering to arise. But he is thinking that more positive assertative formulation may be possible, and helpful to him in his path from suffering to unfettered existence.

No. I practiced Nichiren Buddhism for about four years and changed lineages. Im more familar with the Pali Suttas. There are different interpretations of anatta though. I listen to a lot of tibetan views but its quite different than the mahayana views I think buddha Dharma speaks of. I dont have the cultural experience so my Dharmic language isnt up to par.

 

[sayak83]

No. I practiced Nichiren Buddhism for about four years and changed lineages. Im more familar with the Pali Suttas. There are different interpretations of anatta though. I listen to a lot of tibetan views but its quite different than the mahayana viewsnI think Buddha Dharma speaks of. I dont have the cultural experience so my Dharmic language isnt up to par.

Thanks. I was somehow of the idea that you recently moved from Catholicism to Buddhism. Apologize for my presumption.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You are new to Buddhism correct?
What @Buddha Dharma 's doubts are really about (I think, correct me if I am wrong) is on the question on the foundations of "Being-sense-awareness" and how it connects to the suffering-extinguishing or liberating "Root-existence awareness". Buddhism typically goes by the negative root, not saying much about foundations, and instead trying to cut through the processes and false clinging that cause suffering to arise. But he is thinking that more positive assertative formulation may be possible, and helpful to him in his path from suffering to unfettered existence.

Yep, I understand. Im not familar with Hindu terminology. The Buddha Dharma taught that we dont have a fixed soul. So, who we are is not a good question to understand a fixed soul. The Buddha was concerned about our deeds, what we do. The whole Dharma is about attachment. The idea is that when we attach to anything and any idea we develop an illusion of a fixed self. That absence of a fixed self is anatta. We are so conditioned to define ourselves by our gods, culture, sex, and so forth that according to The Dharma is distracting away from the goal to end suffering. Its why monks and nuns go into monastary. Its to rid of all outside attachments and focus on deeds and education of The Dharma to laymen.

Nichiren Dishonin, a Ten Tai Buddhist monk, taught we all have a buddha-nature. We all have a nature (not soul) to be enlightened in this time period. Mahayana teaches more we can realize our enlightenment by opening our awareness to not attach. Where as, if I remember in the Pali Suttas, the goal of Theravada is to become an arahant before one is enlightened.

Tibetan Kadampa (the temple I go to) talks more about the role of death. Outside of those two, Im not familar with other Buddhist lineages.

buddha dharma mentioned he was having trouble with anatta. Its a hard concept because in my view you literally are seperating yourself from yourself in order to live a well being not suffering oriented life. Which means, basicslly, one is empty of what it means to be human.

As for its connection with Hinduism, I dont know. buddha dharma mentioned he was interested in hinduism so his words are most likly foreign to me especislly the role of consciousness. The closest I idea I can find in The Dharma is Samadhi. But I have no teacher only temple and sutta and sutra knowledge.

Edit.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thanks. I was somehow of the idea that you recently moved from Catholicism to Buddhism. Apologize for my presumption.

Yeah. I practiced Buddhism before I went to Catholicism. A roman catholic friend of mine introduced me to Catholicism. After going to Mass with her for years, I made a premature jump and became catholic. The idea of god in the Church I found out is different than the internal nature of "god" as and in life (how I define god). Going through jesus sacrifice was a turn off. The Buddha taught life was not through death but knowledge, actions, and nonattachment. I only pracracticd catholicism for four years. I went back to Buddhism. 2015ish and took refuge at a local zen temple last year september.

I had a positive experience at the Church just human sacrifice and jesus to god was a turn off. Id rather learn about god without an intermediary. But since RF, I found I was an atheist, I dont know where to start especially since The Dharma (Buddhism) doesnt teach that. The Buddha actually had a debate with an incarnation of Brahma. He proved Brahma wrong of having a fixed self and won the debate of our self being in constant change.

Anyway, I love talking about The Dharma. Its more knowledge since I havent practiced at the temple given school and distance.

Wow. I do type a lot. no problem, though. Confuses many people. Probably because I have no querms with The Church.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thanks. I was somehow of the idea that you recently moved from Catholicism to Buddhism. Apologize for my presumption.

Sorry for the two long posts. No need to reply

 

[Mindmaster]

I
Anatta has always been problematic for me. It hasn't helped that I struggle with depression, and when I do> I need self-affirmation. The Buddha himself gave permission to find what works for you. I find that I need an Atman concept the more I reflect on it, and that places me outside of Buddhism.

Anatta just flies in the face of my individual spiritual experiences, so I would naturally disregard it. Once you have an experience of 'one in many' you can't really shoe horn it into that definition. Admittedly, I've had only a few of those experiences to date but it's nearly impossible to apply logic to that situation and argue with them. That experience was basically watching my mind and dream state simultaneously, and noticing that all happening at once while being completely independent of either. The brain was racing through thoughts of the day sorting nearly every experience I had while the dreaming functions were throwing imagery all over my field of view but it felt like it was on a TV - I wasn't really in the dream. However, "I", was just sitting there watching them like a fly on a wall. I could still think independently of this process so it was obvious to me that 'I' was just watching the 'body' do it's thing. If there is no Atman, there is no 'watching' from the fly on the wall space. You are awake, dreaming, etc.

Anyway, this isn't a situation logic can resolve for you. Seek the Atman and you will find it or don't, but you lose nothing either way. The truth comes out in time.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Could you tell me what kind of practice suits you the best. Caitanya's path is through devotion, Puja and communal devotional songs. Other alternatives are yogic path of meditation, tantric path (similar to tantric Buddhism in some respects) and path of service (like volunteering, serving the poor etc.). Also we have the path of liberating knowledge via philosophy.

I think I wouldn't mind Puja as an aspect of it. I engage in Puja in the Buddhist sense. That is: ask/thank the deities for protection and blessings. I know for one approaching the Devas as Isvara though, it goes much deeper than that. I'm not really looking to limit myself in exploring at this time. Puja is something I consider worth consideration.

Meditation is obviously something I'd like to keep doing.

Brahma is primarily associated with the path of knowledge and to a lesser extent, yoga. But if it serves your purpose, you can coopt a Buddhist Brahma as your meditating deity.

I am open to learning more about Brahma from the Hindu perspective, if I decide to go in that direction. I think the primary difference is probably that Buddhists don't see deities as synonymous with Ultimate Reality.

 

[sayak83]

I think I wouldn't mind Puja as an aspect of it. I engage in Puja in the Buddhist sense. That is: ask/thank the deities for protection and blessings. I know for one approaching the Devas as Isvara though, it goes much deeper than that. I'm not really looking to limit myself in exploring at this time. Puja is something I consider worth consideration.

Meditation is obviously something I'd like to keep doing.



I am open to learning more about Brahma from the Hindu perspective, if I decide to go in that direction. I think the primary difference is probably that Buddhists don't see deities as synonymous with Ultimate Reality.

I have started a thread on Yogasutra in the interfaith section. Feel free to take a peek.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@sayak83 I will say that Bhedabheda seems to allow a great deal of freedom for the adherent in how they reconcile it's ideas with their own spirituality, so I am not sure I'd need to stop being polytheist if I do go that way. I could as easily see the gods as yet more variations of Brahman.

 

[Gohelwan alien Vega 17b]

I believe the Buddha said nothing can be taken out from the Dharma. Not anything will/can be removed from the Dharma ultimately. I think one issue with the Dharma religions is that the literature, teachings, and just plain information base is so so vast. Something that's funny is that the idea of there being no self leads ironically to this next conception. The true self is a self without any specific identity( no selfhood/personhood owned at anytime) but with all identities possible in it. So then you have no self so to say but there still is an ultimate self with all these possible identity self's in it( the ultimate has all these potentials in it that don't go away and isn't that the self ultimately?). It's a little confusing. My intuition is that the Buddha was saying we are just a bunch of thought blocks that adhere together and we can Unself that. We can observe thought until we don't have thought or we majority break thought as it's all usually linked up. This brings us to a different higher level experience of consciousness or pure being. We might feel so much is just floating on true being. Thoughts are just floating on being like drift wood on the surface of a river. Still it seems the backdrop reality persists. The individual can be free from thought entirely yet that does not stop it's potential in other areas of existence and does not stop existence as what it is. The individual in one sense is no longer impacted by reality because he/she may go into working at the subtle level or supra conscious level solely yet all this of which I speak is there.