Am I a Buddhist?

[Kismet]

I want to sketch my basic (current) views on the soul and individual personality and see what others have to make of them.

Firstly, I will state that I believe in a transcendent, completely spiritual Being that is Brahman. This Brahman also in-dwells each of us as Atman, though because Brahman is indivisible this Atman we all are is only provisionally or relatively real from the standpoint of the individual-consciousness. (It is also relatively real from the stand-point of Ishvara-consciousness, but I won't go into that right now).

Now, the personality, which is based on the ego, is, in short, false, a mirage that has no independent reality whatsoever. The personality is not the Atman. It has the mind-substance (chitta) as its source and includes ego (ahamkara) as its base. So, in that sense, we do not really have what most people refer to as a "self." There is no permanent personality. There is consciousness, which is ever-present, and is the permanent substratum that ever is. Furthermore, we are this eternal Being. However, what we normally refer to as our sense of self as Jack or Bill or Sally is completely illusory.

My question again centers on the view of personal identity and transmigration of the soul. When one dies, the Atman (which is really none other than Brahman) remains. The human self in the popular sense (which is only a pile of thoughts bound together) is completely destroyed. What happens is that the vasanas or samskaras get "re-configured" upon death of the body by former karmas, and the false sense of self is restored in a future incarnation.

This is where the sense of personal identity comes out. I am wondering if I trespass too far and could be accused of being a Buddhist. Any thoughts?

[Ananda]

Just sounds like Advaita to me.

[satay]

namaste,
Buddhists don't believe in a soul or atma. If you believe in a soul you are not a buddhist.

[sunyata07]

Namaste,

I agree with Ananda. It doesn't sound like you're a Buddhist. Sounds like you're of the Advaita mindset. Individual personality and constituents of "I"-ness are an illusion in non-dual teachings. Personality as we would understand it in the traditional sense of what makes Bob, Bob is not really there, and you're probably right - it is the acculumation of one's vasanas and samskaras that will proceed into the next reincarnation, not the person itself. Buddhism's stance on the Atman (and probably Paratman) tends to be one of disbelief, as it emphasises the impermanence of things. Buddha himself refused to talk too much about God and the individual soul - he felt these things would be getting in the way of enlightenment, but as far as I know Buddhists today largely don't believe in the concept of a soul.

It's been a while since I've studied Buddhism, so if I've made any mistakes and we have any resident Buddhists here on HDF, please do correct me.

Om namah Shivaya

[Kismet]

Ah, excellent. Thank you all.

I want to say though that I don't consider myself a strict Advaitin... And this may sound odd, but even the "illusory" Saguna Brahman is of equal weight and importance as the qualityless Brahman. The "illusion" itself is what has to be honored as God (and is aware as such, together with "awareness" itself), as being ordained by the ancient Shakti or "Logos" of the Unmanifest Truth. Basically, it's like attending to your child's recital - except of infinitely more importance than even that.

Anyway, it is all a coherent, holistic whole. It is more than just emptiness, as the Buddhist may state. There is an actual eternal Self at the hub of All.

[Sahasranama]

Advaita/dvaita are philosophies of vedanta, not belief systems on their own. In order to qualify to study them, you have to learn the vedas with vedangas and do the prescribed duties including nitya and naimitika karma (which don't create karma), excluding kamya and nishidha karma (respectively create good and bad karma which are binding in sansara). Only after such an arduous process do you become qualified to study vedantic philosophy. Then you go to a guru and study for several years, if then you understand the teachings and are convinced that they are the right interpretation of vedanta with the blessings of your guru, you can call yourself an advaitin or whatever. Even then, if some dvaitin comes and challenges your view and convinces you of his system being the right interpretation of shastra, you'll have to accept that. That's one reason why neo-vedanta is such a big joke. People think they are "enlightened" after a weekend satsang and start promoting their own ideas.

Otherwise, I do not see any value for a practicing Hindu to attach himself to such labels. Hindu dharma is not limited to medieval polemics on the nature of reality. Personally, I think it's interesting to learn about Indian philosophy, but it makes no sense to make up your mind before studying philosophy or before studying the shastras. I am not implying agnosticism here, but only some intellectual honesty regarding your level of understanding. Belief has become a dirty word in the modern world, but as a Hindu you should belief in the vedas with all your heart. Just don't think you understand them. Like the Zen masters say, empty your cup, cultivate beginner's mind. The great Hindu acharyas did not become what they are by memorising other people's arguments and using that to define their own understanding of the vedas.

[Kismet]

Namaste, Sahasranama

Advaita/dvaita are philosophies of vedanta, not belief systems on their own. In order to qualify to study them, you have to learn the vedas with vedangas and do the prescribed duties including nitya and naimitika karma (which don't create karma), excluding kamya and nishidha karma (respectively create good and bad karma which are binding in sansara). Only after such an arduous process do you become qualified to study vedantic philosophy. Then you go to a guru and study for several years, if then you understand the teachings and are convinced that they are the right interpretation of vedanta with the blessings of your guru, you can call yourself an advaitin or whatever. Even then, if some dvaitin comes and challenges your view and convinces you of his system being the right interpretation of shastra, you'll have to accept that. That's one reason why neo-vedanta is such a big joke. People think they are "enlightened" after a weekend satsang and start promoting their own ideas.

I think we can find a decent middle-ground, no? With all due respect, I simply do not have the time, and in all honesty the full inclination, to study all the main Vedic scriptures in depth over a period of many years. Nor do I find the prospect of me finding a qualified guru soon at any time forthcoming.

That said, in some sense I cannot help speculating. I don't believe my ideas amount to enlightenment. Hardly. What they do though is help me get together my bearings - in terms of Who God is and who I myself am... My thoughts are such that they make the most sense to me... that is all any of us can do really - follow what makes the most sense to us - with just the right concession to Authority...

Otherwise, I do not see any value for a practicing Hindu to attach himself to such labels. Hindu dharma is not limited to medieval polemics on the nature of reality. Personally, I think it's interesting to learn about Indian philosophy, but it makes no sense to make up your mind before studying philosophy or before studying the shastras. I am not implying agnosticism here, but only some intellectual honesty regarding your level of understanding. Belief has become a dirty word in the modern world, but as a Hindu you should belief in the vedas with all your heart. Just don't think you understand them. Like the Zen masters say, empty your cup, cultivate beginner's mind. The great Hindu acharyas did not become what they are by memorising other people's arguments and using that to define their own understanding of the vedas.

I don't think I am anywhere near well-versed with the whole of Vedic thought. Nor do I believe I have "understood" the Vedas. Though I have gleaned some of their import, in my humble opinion.

Intellectual speculations/philosophy are not the end-all of Hinduism to my mind. So I agree with you. But since I am already of a highly philosophical bent of mind, thinking about God in both His personal and transpersonal aspects, helps me. And I think it also helps me progress spiritually by thinking of high thoughts and not being dragged by worldliness outside too much.

[devotee]

Namaste Kismet,

I don't agree at all with Sahasranama. If that were true then there will be very few people left who can be called to be of one or the other school of vedanta. ... and calling so-called neo-vedantins a joke is a cruel joke in itself. The first thing a Hindu learns is to respect all saints & all diverging views.

My advice seeing your inclination is :

a) Read Upanishads & try to understand the message within
b) It is not easy to understand Upanishads unless you get some help from some experts. You can very well rely upon explanations given by Sanyasins from any of the Shankaracharya's orders (including Ramkrishna Mission, Advaita Ashram etc.)

b) To start with you may go through these Upanishads first :

i) Katha Upanishad
ii) Mandukya Upanishad
iii) Mundak Upanishad
iv) Sarvasara Upanishad
v) Ishavasya Upanishad
vi) Shvetasvatar Upanishad

Don't commit yourself to anyone or the other school till you yourself read the Upanishads and see for yourself what they actually say.

OM

[charitra]

it is ok to label oneself whatever the way one wants to be identified with, no one can become a pundit in a short time , as we all know it is a life long mission. The more you read the sooner you realize how little you know, the literature is simply too vast. One gets a title of dwivedi, trivedi and chaturvedi after a lifetime's hard work, that explains the immensity of the scriptures.

[rajputistan]

namaste,
Buddhists don't believe in a soul or atma. If you believe in a soul you are not a buddhist.

hahahaha and they claim they follow Buddha