no photos please :-)

The Dreamers , Akialoa

01 From a nethermost point of view ,Wim Mertens

17 Dream , Alexander Balanescu, Ada Milea , The Island

.....~~~ should i smile or cry? no idea...

Sweet Honey In the Rock,Testimony

There's godlike
And warlike
And strong
Like only some show
And there's sad like
And madlike
And had
Like we know
But by my life be I spirit
And by my heart be I woman
And by my eyes be I open
And by my hands be I whole

They say slowly
Brings the least shock
But no matter how slow I walk
There are traces
Empty spaces
And doors and doors of locks
But by my life be I spirit
And by my heart be I woman
And by my eyes be I open
And by my hands be I whole

You young ones
You're the next ones
And I hope you choose it well
Though you try hard
You may fall prey
To the jaded jewel
But by your lives be you spirit
And by your hearts be you women
And by your eyes be you open
And by your hands be you whole

Listen, there are waters
Hidden from us
In the maze we find them still
We'll take you to them
You take your young ones
May they take their own in turn
But by our lives be we spirit
And by our hearts be we women
And by our eyes be we open
And by our hands be we whole.

walking between re-flect-ion and meditation

now i am not so very busy with "self" as this is an egocentric job.
to be an egoist is ok enough.

i walk around and drive and work, here in alive exchange with others,
there in half sleep and in between reflecting and meditating
a lot of my time.
reflection...not so much a mirror, more of a prism,
and it goes in a talking inside , forms thoughts and words, makes me write,
sometimes-
then i let it all drop as on water, watch the rings spread and meditate
already having forgotten what i was thinking about. it feels good.

in the end i wish i could do it with all on which/whom i re-flect
and which/who re-flects on me,
and in between i can.
just to watch rings expanding...so nice. silence. so delicious.

Bodhisattva in metro HQ

Do Buddhists believe in a soul?, lionsroar.com- reflection,associations,thoughts

http://www.lionsroar.com/do-buddhists-believe-in-a-soul/?goal=0_1988ee44b2-2416f18c65-22284457&mc_cid=2416f18c65&mc_eid=83cbb78504

"The short answer is no. In fact, this is the defining premise of Buddhism and one of the main things that differentiates it from other religions. In ancient Hinduism, the soul was called the atman and the basic Buddhist view was described as anatman—no soul.

A soul is considered to be something at our core that is single, independent, and unchanging. This isn’t just a religious belief; deep down, we all believe we have a soul. When I feel hurt, I must believe there is a separate “me” that is being hurt. In that sense, soul, self, and ego all refer to the same thing—our belief in a single, independent, and unchanging “me,” whether mundane or transcendent.

The Buddha said that all phenomena—including us—are conditioned, and all conditioned phenomena are impermanent. Far from being single, independent, and unchanging, we are made up of many parts, a product of causes and conditions, and constantly changing.

Yet Buddhism does say we have an essential nature that transcends conditioned or material existence. In the Mahayana, this is called buddhanature, the open expanse of awakeness in which all good qualities reside.

Is this just another version of a soul? Well, it is if you think of it that way—if you try to identify yourself with it. But in reality, buddhanature is said to be empty of all concepts of self and identity, as well as birth, death, time, space, etc. To be anatman, if you will."

first reflections:

i think i have have been thinking or more reflecting on this for all my  life since youth.

i am not at all interested in "belief", and i never was.

i cannot see the definition of soul and me , of self and ego as given here for true or say correct.

no deep thinker in our time will see the soul or "me" as something unchanging, independent and single. 

cognitive science shows us how much consciousness and self are changing and forming from moment to moment along experience,  C.G.Jung showed us "the" soul as connecting to the collective unconscious,  and i cannot see it as independent but as existing in inter-being.     in a socio-cultural context soul is a spongy definition containing the realm of emotions, relatedness to life and death, intuition, deep feeling, desire, longing,  love between man and woman, the innocent  state of small children, and this what we call heart and pureness inside giving us space to unfold in feeling, action and dream. Spongy i must call it as everybody will find another definition for himself or herself and even different contexts in different cultures and languages.

soul is not buddha nature AND it can be filled with it. When we see in the eyes of a dog or a small child we see soul. Alternatively  i could say: the soul - when silent from the noise and struggle of individuation- is the sphere in which the Buddha nature can be present and through which kindness and compassion can radiate. 

soul is life flowing not only as a river but even in a river and it is a river.

the part about the essential nature and awakeness i see the same.

alas, we are all individuated beings, even dogs who may not be conscious of it, and in inter-being and with growth  our souls can be clouded with sadness and a feeling of alienation or filled with true light and space in varying proportions.

soul i could like to say is a field of consciousness and feeling in which we can meet with stones, plants, animals, nature and other individuated humans, it is inside and in between at the same time, a flow of energy  through which we being humans can find a way to buddha nature or to hell.

soul exists because of individuation and in between for all relationships be it with animals, children, adults -and it is in itself an unconscious or maybe better non-thinking state of being, containing innocence and experience , beauty and wings to fly.

being too  is always moving and changing, and soul is a basic energy in individual life and death. 

nothing is fixed, and belief like this stated above distracts exactly from this, it puts itself in contradiction to itself and moves away from what could have been intended to communicate:     we are all given an essence which makes us all relatives, and this is pure and independent of belief, society, culture and the needs of the day.

Buddha didn't "believe" and belief has nothing to do with Buddhism.
I guess in some ways Buddhism was for religion what Marxism meant for our analysis of society and history: a revolution. Revolutions should not be fixed after into dogma.
I am rather interested in the post-revolutionary outcome.

Everybody is to find a perspective on how to be alive and to die and on how to act in the light of  what i may call the way of the heart which is far beyond simple definition and words.