From: jdavis@netlink.cts.com (James Davis)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Buddha's Mystery--response to Erik
Date: 3 Sep 92 00:37:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Sep3.084143.22793
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Erik Radmall writes:

>I am wondering a lot about the "No Soul" theory in Buddhism. I can accept
>almost all other Buddhist tenets except that one. Maybe I just don't
>understand it clearly enough. If existence is composed of the "5 aggregates"
>and is a "dependent arising", then why the need to experience Nirvana? If
>Nirvana is the cessation of all sensation - even though Buddha said it is
>not a nihilistic thing, I just don't see how it could be other than that.
>It would seem to be senseless to annihilate your own consciousness for
>some undefined end. Personally, I don't see what I stand to gain by
>"entering the Stream". If anyone has opinions on this, please share them,
>this is a real bone in my throat.


I think the "No Soul" idea in Buddhism is a misunderstanding of the concept
of unity or non-duality.  When the average personality starts thinking about
"my soul," "your soul," "your salvation," "my salvation," etc., then unity
disappears.   Some Teachers, realizing this, sought to offset the problem by
rejection of any concepts and words that might feed the little ego or sense
of separateness.  So we have some traditions that seem to affirm unity to the
exclusion of any concept of individuality.  The intent was to lead people
away from selfishness toward unity.  "No soul," "entering the stream," etc.
are attempts to direct toward unity. 

Unity is the underlying mystic reality, the fundamental truth of one Life, of
the soul, of the heart.  The sense of separateness, of duality, multiplicity,
division, is characteristic of phenomenal life, of personality, and of the
intellect and separative emotions.  Through spiritual eyes there is only one
and this is the great truth; through phenomenal eyes there are many and this
is the relative truth.  

Words like "No Soul," "entering the Stream," should not actually be taken as
a denial of the soul or individuality.  The negation idea is "a real bone" in
your throat and the throats of many because of an intuition or spiritual
sense about identity and the knowledge that negation cannot express reality. 
Read between the lines of all traditions with your own intuition.  Accept
only what rings true for you.

It is a mistake to lean to much on ancient teachings for fundamentals.  At
best they are springboards for intuition, at worst they are intellectual 
dead-ends.  We do not stop to think much about the problems inherent in
religious teachings as a communication process.  To do so is to realize that
there is no rational basis for accepting whole and as-is any teaching--
especially an ancient one passed through the filtering, distorting,
selecting, abstracting, and translating process inherent in all human
communication.  

Buddhism is not what Buddha thought; Christianity is not what Christ thought.

This is self-evident and common sense.  When we talk about Buddhism or any
other religion we should not be so naive as to believe that we have actually
taken hold of what was taught by the real Buddha and his immediate followers.

Buddha and Christ did not write scripture.  What we have are texts by people
with their own thoughts and agendas.  We have oral traditions and reports of
reports written hundreds of years after the death of the great teachers.  A
teaching may be initiated by the enlightened, but the words we work with now
are human creations that should not be swallowed whole.  If a tenant of any
teaching is contrary to your sense of truth, cast it out.  If an idea chokes
you, cough it up and spit it out.  That's my best thought.


Jim

--                    
INTERNET:  jdavis@netlink.cts.com (James Davis)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jdavis
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern