Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a soul?
absolute
Explorer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
from wiki The anattā doctrine is not a type of materialism. Buddhism does not necessarily deny the existence of mental phenomena (such as feelings, thoughts, and sensations) that are distinct from material phenomena.[2] Thus, the conventional translation of anattā as "no-soul"[3] can be misleading. If the word "soul" refers to a non-bodily component in a person that can continue in some way after death, then Buddhism does not deny the existence of a soul.[4] In fact, persons (Pāli: puggala; Sanskrit, pudgala) are said to be characterized by an ever-evolving consciousness (Pali: samvattanika viññana),[5][6] stream of consciousness (Pali: viññana sotam;[5] Sanskrit: vijñana srotām), or mind-continuity (Sanskrit: citta-saṃtāna) which, upon the death or dissolution of the aggregates (skandhas), becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new group of skandhas. However, Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent or static entity that remains constant behind the changing bodily and non-bodily components of a living being. Reportedly, the Buddha reprimanded a disciple who thought that in the process of rebirth the same consciousness is reborn without change.[7] Just as the body changes from moment to moment, so thoughts come and go; and according to the anattā doctrine, there is no permanent conscious substance that experiences these thoughts, as in Cartesianism: rather, conscious thoughts simply arise and perish with no "thinker" behind them.[8] When the body dies, the incorporeal mental processes continue and are reborn in a new body.[4] Because the mental processes are constantly changing, the new being is neither exactly the same as, nor completely different from, the being that died.[9]
On one interpretation, although Buddhism rejects the notion of a permanent self, it does not reject the notion of an empirical self (albeit consisting of constantly changing physical and mental phenomena) that can be conveniently referred to with words such as "I", "you", "being", "individual", etc.[10] Early Buddhist scriptures describe an enlightened individual as someone whose changing, empirical self is highly developed. According to Buddhist teachings, this phenomenon should not, either in whole or in part, be reified, either in affirmation or denial. The Buddha rejected the latter metaphysical assertions as ontological theorizing that binds one to suffering.[11]
On another interpretation, Buddhism rejects any idea of the self. On this view it is incorrect even to speak about an "empirical self". This is because constantly changing physical and mental phenomena all have impermanence, and anything with such impermanence does not amount to the idea of a self. One is permitted to use terms such as "I", "you", and so on, not because they refer to an empirical self, but simply because they are "convenient designations".[12] They are used in much the same way that the word "it" is used in the sentence "It is cold". Here there is nothing that the word "it" refers to. It is merely a grammatical device which allows one to assert "there is cold", while using a substantive term.[13]
Some Mahayana Buddhist sutras and tantras present Buddhist teachings on emptiness using positive language by positing the ultimate reality of the "true self" (atman). In these teachings the word is used to refer to each being's inborn potential to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices, and future status as a Buddha.[14]
Anattā, dukkha (suffering/unease), and anicca (impermanence), are the three dharma seals, which, according to Buddhism, characterise all conditioned phenomena. IS THIS TRUE EXPLAIN TO ME BECAUSE I AM ARGUING WITH A PERSON WHO SAID ANATTA IS RELATED TO REBIRTH SO THAT ANATTA IS A KIND OF SOUL, AND HE LINKED THIS WIKIPEDIA SECTION
from wiki The anattā doctrine is not a type of materialism. Buddhism does not necessarily deny the existence of mental phenomena (such as feelings, thoughts, and sensations) that are distinct from material phenomena.[2] Thus, the conventional translation of anattā as "no-soul"[3] can be misleading. If the word "soul" refers to a non-bodily component in a person that can continue in some way after death, then Buddhism does not deny the existence of a soul.[4] In fact, persons (Pāli: puggala; Sanskrit, pudgala) are said to be characterized by an ever-evolving consciousness (Pali: samvattanika viññana),[5][6] stream of consciousness (Pali: viññana sotam;[5] Sanskrit: vijñana srotām), or mind-continuity (Sanskrit: citta-saṃtāna) which, upon the death or dissolution of the aggregates (skandhas), becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new group of skandhas. However, Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent or static entity that remains constant behind the changing bodily and non-bodily components of a living being. Reportedly, the Buddha reprimanded a disciple who thought that in the process of rebirth the same consciousness is reborn without change.[7] Just as the body changes from moment to moment, so thoughts come and go; and according to the anattā doctrine, there is no permanent conscious substance that experiences these thoughts, as in Cartesianism: rather, conscious thoughts simply arise and perish with no "thinker" behind them.[8] When the body dies, the incorporeal mental processes continue and are reborn in a new body.[4] Because the mental processes are constantly changing, the new being is neither exactly the same as, nor completely different from, the being that died.[9]
On one interpretation, although Buddhism rejects the notion of a permanent self, it does not reject the notion of an empirical self (albeit consisting of constantly changing physical and mental phenomena) that can be conveniently referred to with words such as "I", "you", "being", "individual", etc.[10] Early Buddhist scriptures describe an enlightened individual as someone whose changing, empirical self is highly developed. According to Buddhist teachings, this phenomenon should not, either in whole or in part, be reified, either in affirmation or denial. The Buddha rejected the latter metaphysical assertions as ontological theorizing that binds one to suffering.[11]
On another interpretation, Buddhism rejects any idea of the self. On this view it is incorrect even to speak about an "empirical self". This is because constantly changing physical and mental phenomena all have impermanence, and anything with such impermanence does not amount to the idea of a self. One is permitted to use terms such as "I", "you", and so on, not because they refer to an empirical self, but simply because they are "convenient designations".[12] They are used in much the same way that the word "it" is used in the sentence "It is cold". Here there is nothing that the word "it" refers to. It is merely a grammatical device which allows one to assert "there is cold", while using a substantive term.[13]
Some Mahayana Buddhist sutras and tantras present Buddhist teachings on emptiness using positive language by positing the ultimate reality of the "true self" (atman). In these teachings the word is used to refer to each being's inborn potential to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices, and future status as a Buddha.[14]
Anattā, dukkha (suffering/unease), and anicca (impermanence), are the three dharma seals, which, according to Buddhism, characterise all conditioned phenomena. IS THIS TRUE EXPLAIN TO ME BECAUSE I AM ARGUING WITH A PERSON WHO SAID ANATTA IS RELATED TO REBIRTH SO THAT ANATTA IS A KIND OF SOUL, AND HE LINKED THIS WIKIPEDIA SECTION
0
Comments
I think it has much to do with an invitation to a higher understanding of self..for example mind functioning with fewer 'self' parameters at the thought origin point.
The parable of the women who see a corpse in the graveyard, and one asks" where has he gone?"..it reminds me of the response 'Mu' in that old koan...the word mu means 'nothing' but..his response 'mu'...means a lot more than no, or nothing.
Anyway, bottom line is, no simple answers with anatta and sunyata ! You'll find many interpretations and many arguments about both.
To offer a lame sentence; it's wise to see them as more about practice than philosophical argument. 'See for yourself' is one of those unspoken fundamentals of Buddhism..one that I live by.
In on book I have the Dalai Lama speaks about how he was taking on a newly ordained monk and he was doing very well, grasping many of the concepts of Buddhism and excelling, then one day he spoke about how there is no soul in Buddhism. This man was Western and was once a Christian, the Dalai Lama stated that the man went pale and had quite a shock due to this teaching. He eventually came around to the idea but it was obviously somewhat of a shock to him.
Personally I do not belief in a soul, but then again it may depend on what you define as a soul. You can take the dictionaries definition of it, the Christian definition, a hippies definition etc, there's some real soul in that melody man :om:
there is a reason why Buddhism does not use the words rebirth or reincarnation, as both insinuate some sort of permanent soul is moving from body to body. becoming and rebecoming are used.
Anatta is not-self, meaning that you cannot find some sort of permanent never changing self in anything you observe, as shown in the Anatta Sutta below.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
Thus I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Benares, in the Deer Park at Isipatana (the Resort of Seers). There he addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five: "Bhikkhus." — "Venerable sir," they replied. The Blessed One said this.
"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'
"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...
"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...
"Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...
"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
"Is feeling permanent or impermanent?...
"Is perception permanent or impermanent?...
"Are determinations permanent or impermanent?...
"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?" — "Painful, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'
"Any kind of feeling whatever...
"Any kind of perception whatever...
"Any kind of determination whatever...
"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'
"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in determinations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.
"When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were glad, and they approved his words.
Now during this utterance, the hearts of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from taints through clinging no more.
other resources:
selves and not self
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself.html
egolessness
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel202.html
In Theravada, for example, the general consensus (especially among those who put a lot of stock in the Abhidhamma Pitaka and the commentarial literature) is that there's no self to be found whatsoever, and you get passages like this from the Visuddhimagga: However, there are also those in Theravada who take a more 'middle of the path' approach, like Thanissaro Bhikkhu, who is of the opinion that "the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness" (No-self or Not-self?).
And then there are those who believe that there is a transcendent self, but that it's merely obscured by the aggregates.
As for myself, when I first started out, I was decidedly in the no self category since most of the books and teachers I had stressed this interpretation. But after studying and contemplating the teachings more, I'm now of the opinion that the anatta teachings are ultimately a pragmatic, soteriological methods rather than a strict ontological statements about reality one must believe.
In fact, I think the Suttas are quite clear that, as important as having an intellectual understanding of the teachings is, people who are serious about ending suffering will eventually need to put these teachings into practice to see whether they really do lead to a true and lasting happiness. Simply clinging to views of self certainly won't do it; and it should be noted that clinging to the view 'I have no self' can be as much of a form of self view as 'I have a self': Ultimately, I think trying to approach the teachings on not-self from an purely intellectual standpoint runs the risk of turning them into a metaphysical doctrine of self, which I believe falls short of their intended purpose. The Dhamma itself isn't just a collection of words, it's something to be utilized, to be experienced; and the Buddha didn't teach anatta as a doctrine of self, he taught anatta as part of his overall strategy to overcome suffering.
The first noble truth states that, in short, the five clinging-aggregate (panca-upadana-khandha) are suffering, i.e., it's the clinging in reference to the aggregates that's suffering, which originates due to craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, and craving for non-becoming (SN 56.11). The teachings on not-self, in conjunction with meditation practices, help us to develop dispassion in regard to the aggregates and relinquish our attachment to them.
As SN 22.22 illustrates, clinging to the aggregates is like mentally picking up a heavy burden; and by putting that burden down through "the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go" of craving, the 'burden' of suffering is cast off. At the point, questions of self and not-self are no longer useful or relevant. As Sariputta warns in AN 4.174, asking what remains after the remainderless stopping and fading of the six contact-media "objectifies non-objectification": All that's left is the 'highest happiness' (Dhp 204), the 'casting off of the burden' (SN 22.22), nibbana.
Openness, clarity, and sensitivity are an unconditioned self. But they are not graspable. You cannot pin down a self. When there is no reference point there is no time so there is no notion of impermanence. A chariot is composed of parts thus a chariot has no self. The awareness that perceives a chariot is composed of skhandas that are also not the self. So what is the self? Google Mooji and find out for yourself.
at first i´d like to tell you that i don´t belong to any of the buddhist directionsl. I live and meditate the 8fold path and got everything that was promised by the teaching of Gotamo Buddho. In Pali-Kanon there is written down that there are two selfes. At first there is thepyhsical one, the we call me, my, ego. But there is a second one, that is called the Real Self. Buddhist Genesis says, that these real selfes, at the very first beginning, were Lightbeing, coming from cosmisc catastrophys, accumulating matter and this product was called: Human. We are the aliens. This Lightbeing has to reincarnate until one of these bodies collected enough good Karma und highly developed consciousness, not to reincarnated any more.
This accumulation of matter is the reasonfor suffering because it´s changing all the time more or less. We percieve these changes as suffering sujectively.
Make this very one life to your last life!
sakko
First viewpoint is from the Sangha itself, and most Buddhists do believe in a kind of soul, as this "soul" is variously described as something that is fundamentally you. If a Buddhist believes in ghosts, reincarnation, or past life karma, and rebirth in different realms, then he or she believes that something survives death that is uniquely and specifically the individual living today. Soul and spirit and subtle consciousness and atman are all names for the same process of something surviving the death of this body, and we do play a mean game of semantics to tap dance around this. We tap dance because of the second viewpoint.
And the second viewpoint is from the Dharma and sutras that attempt to expound on it. I disagree with the wiki article in that anatta is not traditionally translated as "no-soul" but as "no-self". However, the doctrine of no-self when comprehended has no room for the self surviving death in any meaningful way, because the self is seen as the result of the skandhas all working in harmony, each one vital to the continued survival of the self, and one of the skandhas is form or physical body, the brain and processes happening in it. That form is uniquely yours, from the genetic and environment and billions of cell connections that make up your brain.
Take away form and the self no longer exists, in the same way if you take away memory the self no longer exists. Other people might tell you about the person who used to walk around in your body, but for you, that person is dead. Take away form and your memory no longer exists, your consciousness no longer exists, etc, because there is no "you" or self to experience them. They have gone back to the nothingness from which they came.
Under the anatta doctrine, ghosts are impossible because there is no self without a body. Replace the form with a different form, such as is believed in reincarnation, and it is not the same self. So from a strict definiton, no-self does not allow the existence of a "soul" or anything close to one surviving the death of this form.
Thus we tap dance and play semantics, because something in us resists the idea that we end at death. Fortunately, there is also the Buddha's viewpoint, which is it doesn't matter because we are suffering in this life, no matter what happens after death.
Think of the difference as soul being likened to a solid metal rod that links all lives together, it is essentially the same phenomena from life to life.
The Buddhist view denies this version of a soul. They tend to see this link as a series of small steps linking one moment to the next. More like a stack of blocks than a solid bar.
Similarly our current self is empty or dimensionless, but there is also a line connected from our current self to other rebirths including in real time moment to moment.
Nagarjuna tried to say you could reject eternalism, annihilationism both (and 2 more contractions) and instead pick a "middle" solution. I'm not clever enough to understand how you can pick a middle solution between mutually exclusive options. Sounds like just a basic contradiction to me.
Some modern writers on Buddhism--Glenn Wallace-- seem to imply that Buddhism works better with annihilationism. If you have to give up some contradictionary point, give up the point that might just be us wishing and hoping and grasping for immortality. (yeah, people might voluntarily *want* to commit suicide, but that's the edge case-- the normal case is we *desperately* *want* and *need* to live FOREVER! so which option are we likely to be grasping for?)
The metaphysics of all of this are all for people much smarter than me-- most of what I've read on the metaphysics of it all is turgid, cryptic, and possibly all a big obscurantist, fraudulent show to help the authors maintain their illusion of a permanent self..
I think what we do now is decidedly more important that what happens when we are a corpse.
The views expressed in my posts are mine and mine alone, I ask no one, certainly not you or the world to agree with them, follow them or even find them useful. My take on the world and mine alone.
...according to the Mayahaya, anyway.
Again. Buddha nature IS emptiness, Reference: the Jewel Ornament of Liberation which is THE main text of the Karma Kagyu Lam Rim path.
Apparently it can even lead ones focus to widen beyond ones navel.
. . . and now back to the fantasies . . .
Mind you, a soul is rather like God, there's no way of proving it doesn't exist.
A far as beings passing away and re-appearing as mentioned in the above quote, I would not think that it refers to a "mirror" of some sort for consciousness or intellect that passed away. By mirror I am referring to a perceivable "Self".
A far as beings passing away and re-appearing as mentioned in the above quote, I would not think that it refers to a "mirror" of some sort for consciousness or intellect that passed away. By mirror I am referring to a perceivable "Self".
The insight of anatta basically ends this ignorance.
You can think of it this way. There is thinking, feeling, smelling, seeing, hearing, and tasting. On the basis of all that we place an independent, solid "I" on that.
Buddhism denies that there is an independent I or soul or watcher. But since its denying a mistaken perception, nothing but the mistaken perception vanishes. So its not really a denial of anything. It is what we call a non affirming negation. Taking away what is assumed without placing something in the negations place.
Best wishes.
When first encountering this a friend of mine said that who doesn't really apply as that question leads to the witness position and even the eventual collapse of witness into the oneness of awareness.
So instead he said ask how mindfulness works. What are the conditions and causes? And he taught me the model of the 18 dhatus.
So lets work with say sight. I am seeing this object. This is the usual structuring of language and perception. I the subject am seeing (process) the object. So from that pov we have this and that and their relationship.
Buddhism is questioning this intuition and experience. And it does it cleverly without assuming entities and solidity. When the eye sense organ makes contact with the sense object then visual consciousness arises. Its a conditional process, a verb. The eye depends on what is seen and vice versa hence lack any independence.
I know it sounds like philosophical nonsense but its the best way to describe. So mindfulness is the mental faculty that is one condition for the visual appearance to arise.
I guess you could even say mindfulness is mindful without a being doing it. Just like when we run. There isn't a runner but just the actions of feet, legs, knees, ground, breathing, intention, etc all meeting in one total activity. Free from the imputations of who, where, when, why, what.
Hope this helps.
But if that immortality involves completely losing all memory every time you die and are re-born (and change so much that nothing is left except the karmic credits and debits)... then I think this isn't the interesting sort of soul that people are looking for. It isn't annihilationism, but it might as well be. When we want reincarnation, souls and selves to be true, we want it be true in a specific way, not as a rarefied technicality in a philosophical argument about the nature of existence, that would still involve a complete mind and memory erasure (excluding karma debits and credits)
This is sort of like the "uninteresting gods", the one that created the universe then died. The one that created the universe, is still alive, but spends all his time gambling in Reno and doesn't really care about you or intervene in your life.
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heartsutra.html
The Heart Sutra
Avalokiteshvara, the Bodhisattva of Compassion, meditating deeply on Perfection of Wisdom, saw clearly that the five aspects of human existence are empty*, and so released himself from suffering. Answering the monk Sariputra, he said this:
Body is nothing more than emptiness,
emptiness is nothing more than body.
The body is exactly empty,
and emptiness is exactly body.
The other four aspects of human existence --
feeling, thought, will, and consciousness --
are likewise nothing more than emptiness,
and emptiness nothing more than they.
All things are empty:
Nothing is born, nothing dies,
nothing is pure, nothing is stained,
nothing increases and nothing decreases.
So, in emptiness, there is no body,
no feeling, no thought,
no will, no consciousness.
There are no eyes, no ears,
no nose, no tongue,
no body, no mind.
There is no seeing, no hearing,
no smelling, no tasting,
no touching, no imagining.
There is nothing seen, nor heard,
nor smelled, nor tasted,
nor touched, nor imagined.
There is no ignorance,
and no end to ignorance.
There is no old age and death,
and no end to old age and death.
There is no suffering, no cause of suffering,
no end to suffering, no path to follow.
There is no attainment of wisdom,
and no wisdom to attain.
The Bodhisattvas rely on the Perfection of Wisdom,
and so with no delusions,
they feel no fear,
and have Nirvana here and now.
All the Buddhas,
past, present, and future,
rely on the Perfection of Wisdom,
and live in full enlightenment.
The Perfection of Wisdom is the greatest mantra.
It is the clearest mantra,
the highest mantra,
the mantra that removes all suffering.
This is truth that cannot be doubted.
Say it so:
Gaté,
gaté,
paragaté,
parasamgaté.
Bodhi!
Svaha!
Which means...
Gone,
gone,
gone over,
gone fully over.
Awakened!
So be it!
But the conventional has no true referent.
Even to say impermanence or the flow of becoming.
When realization of emptiness or dependent arising is recognized then that impermanence becomes unborn or non-arisen.
There are not two moments. There is only one moment. And since there isn't anything to contrast the one, then even one is obsolete.
Anyways here is a chat log from dharma connections Facebook forum. The beings on there describe eloquently the inexpressible.
http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/in-absence-of-self-who-or-what-is-reborn.html
Or another way to view it as indra's net. We are the node in the net. But everything else is the node. Thus everything is the center of the universe, reflecting everything else simultaneously. Hence unfindable in time or space.
Upon confusion of self awareness hence creating the I and other. We segregate this from that and thus create linear time and space. And then we have an I in relationship to the skandhas.
But if we peel all that back and just stop the fabricating process.
Then its just mystery. And its not like we can make mystery into another thing or a reference point. The idea of a reference point doesn't even make sense.
Yet this is where we meet the limits of communication.
Each individual must figure out their own non-existence and find peace.
http://buddhainthemud.com/2013/02/14/i-am-a-biscuit/ .
Everyone here!
@ourself
It usually refers to anyone looking within.