Does Buddhism have a SOUL

#soul #noself #buddha

[AntonyCummins]

SOMEONE RESPONDED TO THIS VIDEO PLEASE WATCH IT IF YOU CAN

[ninjaspy]

Antony i recommened you find a school that encorporates Debate like The Gelug. I also recommend you find a Geshe who you have a good connection with who can properly give you guidance on your path.

[leonpeters-malone]

Zen perspective first, before a wider, less philosophy focused answer.

Does it matter? Does it really matter at all? Does it matter at all? Does it mean anything to here and now?

If you have a choice to either add to the pain in the world or do you prevent pain being added to the world? Do you take moments to learn how it is you think? Do you take moments to not make others wear the weaknesses, the faults, the flaws you have?

Do you put your life and your expectations on others? Do you demand that others fit in your world? Or do you try the opposite? Accept the world as it is, work with people as they are now?

The tree has fallen, it no longer matters if it has made a sound.

I feel that your current read, question on the matter is based on a binary state of thinking that is warned against across wider texts and lessons. There is you and what you do, what are you and where you come from. There's what you bring in from your past and what you've done, what your karma is carrying. If this is the way I am now, then that is where I am. I am the total of many different things and perspectives. There's many I and Me. Some of them are more 'true' than others. Flaws, warts and all.

If I remember the commentary, sutras, sources correctly, then there's most definitely a soul. For all the connotations that word brings, there's an 'infinite' soul and a 'finite' soul. The soul of you now is a momentary presentation of that larger 'infinite' entity. You'll have to forgive me for not being more specific. I can't place exactly where I read that. It feels far more Indian to Daoist on some level. There's a transience to everything ultimately. Once I started a road of Zen, I didn't look back.

I am happy to be corrected by others. If I have elements confused, wrong, misunderstood, please reply and correct me. This road I've walked has been my own. It is my hope that the destination is still ahead of me, that the path I am takes me there in the time and way that best teaches me in the moment.

This feels very much like the lesson has been misunderstood, the incorrect words and phrases chosen to pass on the lesson. There's an answer buried deep in the question, when you've learned to read it.

[pubbliwebb]

In early Buddhism there was the Pudgalavada whose practitioners postulated some kind of entity that
keeps reincarnating until enlightenment and nirvana.
However, because the pudgala was very close to the atman of Hinduism they were heavily critiziced
by the schools that eventually prevailed.

[MatthewMoller-gjht]

My question is regarding “I”. In Bruce Lee’s Enter The Dragon, he is talking with a monk and says “… because I does not exist…” . I have not delved into this but would like to get your input please. As always, thank you for your time and effort. MaHAlo!

[odcat]

First, the idea of a soul it's older then Christianity.
Secondly, I find it funny that the English word for soul means something else than the Christian word...

[FedericoAndino]

Dear Anthony: first, let me tell you, I love your inquisitiveness. It is very refreshing! However, there's a series of mistakes and misconceptions on the concept of Anatman in Buddhism in your video. First, it is exceedingly difficult to speak of "Buddhism" as a monolithic thing. The Sautantrika understanding of Anatman and Cittasamtana is different than the Yogacaran one, for example. Same of Enlightenment; it is different from the Christian Soter. The main concept that defines what is Buddhist from what is not is The Four Seals. Can I ask where did you study Buddhism in an academic setting?

[TadaGenji]

Antony, we discussed this at length. No-Self doesn't negate the existence of a relative self nor does it apply to the Buddha Nature. It is meant to be used as a methodology that helps you break down and investigate the interdependent causes of phenomena. You keep pushing this idea that it doesn't make sense, but it isn't making sense because you are misunderstanding/misusing the teaching. Buddhism doesn't teach Nihilism nor Annihilationism, so there is no teaching of non-continuum. Your entire concern/confusion regarding same makes no sense because Buddhism isn't teaching that. Anyone telling you Buddhism teaches Annihilation is, simply put, wrong. I'm not sure where you are getting your info, but it really sounds like you are either getting it from frauds or you are simply misunderstanding the concepts.

[ninjaspy]

it took 500 life cycles for buddha Shakyamuni to be a buddha.

[alphaIV]

would you be cool with me doing a watch along of this vid on my stream? I love your channel and this video is along the topics I discuss on mine.
What do you think a soul is in the Buddhist sense of Self, if the Self reincarnates & if the Self can reach Buddhahood?

[-RONNIE]

Personally I think everybody has the right to believe in whatever they want. Also you cannot judge people on what they believe in as well.

[mortenh]

This is what I struggle with in Buddhism.
Inspired by Zen, I have practiced meditation, in different forms, for over 15 years, following Japanese and Tibetan teachings. Meditation is an integral life practice for me.
But you cannot both be nothing and be reincarnated. This is completely nonsensical. It is an unfounded BELIEF, that does not stand on its own two legs.

However, I would direct you to the writings of Stephen Batchelor. He has looked at the Pali Canon critically.

[Opozit]

And who administers karma ? Something has to !, and what was the 1st instance of cause and effect, these things require a supernatural bieng to start them. Something doesntccome out of nothing !.

[KLINGONASSASSIN]

All religions are like bujinkan, doesn't mix well with logic.