Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

No "SOUL" IN BUDDHISM? Think again...

edited April 2012 in Philosophy
there are many suttas you can find where the Buddha is explaining the different relms of exsistance. Each relm we are Born into we always have 2 things, a body of some sort, and consciousness. There is the understanding of a "non self", but in fact there is still some kind of self. Though we can not explain what it is, or where it is...if there is no self, how can you be sitting there reading this? how can there be buddhism for us to know? there is reality and there is a "self"...But this self that changes, and is born into another realm, or even human or animal can be called a soul....or spirit, or even energy if you like. The buddha never said there is no soul.
Here is an example of what I am talking about...

Suttanta Pitaka > Majjhima Nikāya > Suññata Vagga (10 of 10) > Devaduta Sutta(The Heavenly Messengers.) >

MN 130: Devaduta Sutta(The Heavenly Messengers.)

I heard thus.

At one time the Blessed One was living in the monastery offered by Anaathapindika in Jeta’s grove in Saavatthi. The Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus from there. ‘Bhikkhus, like a man standing between two houses with doors standing adjacently would see people entering, leaving, wandering and roaming in the two houses.Likewise I see with my heavenly eye purified beyond human, beings disappearing and appearing, unexalted and exalted, beautiful and ugly, in heaven and in hell. I see beings according their actions: These good beings conducting well by body, speech and mind, not blaming noble ones, developping right view, bearing the right view of actions, at the break up of the body, after death, go to increase, are born in heavenThese good beings conducting well by body, speech and mind, not blaming noble ones, developping right view, bearing the right view of actions, at the break up of the body, after death, are born with humans. These good beings mis -conducting by body, speech and mind, blaming noble ones, developping wrong view, bearing the wrong view of actions, at the break up of the body, after death,.

are born in the sphere of ghosts These good beings misconducting by body, speech and mind, blaming noble ones, developping wrong view, bearing the wrong view of actions, at the break up of the body, after death, are born with animals.These good beings misconducting by body, speech and mind, blaming noble ones, developping wrong view, bearing the wrong view of actions, at the break up of the body, after death, decrease, and are born in hell."

Now look at this next part...

" Bhikkhus, the warders of hell take him by his hands and feet and show him to the king of the under world ‘Lord, this man is unfriendly, not uniting, not chaste, does not honour the elders in the family, mete him the suitable punishment"

Notice how the Buddha says the wardens take this being by the hands and feet? this clearly shows we have a body even in hell...but the body cannot exsist without consciousness...the fact that we are reborn to different places, with different bodies according to our karma, tells us very plainly and clearly there is a self...

Other sutta's say "dragged to hell"

What is the thing that is being dagged? Again, the buddha NEVER SAID "NO SUCH THING AS A SOUL" So we can saefly call it a soul...Or spirit, or A bundle of energy....it is this "thing" that is however changing, still a self.

Now human...later maybe an animal, maybe a deva, maybe a ghost, maybe in Hell....But we clearly have a "soul" that goes to these places.






Comments

  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    Not sure if this is completely in line with your post but check out the two truths doctrine. Basically it says that there is a conventional truth of cause and effect, self, what have you, the world of this and that, then there is the ultimate truth of emptiness or no self.

    So on the conventional level we can have something that goes from life to life without negating the ultimate nature of phenomena.
  • Not sure if this is completely in line with your post but check out the two truths doctrine. Basically it says that there is a conventional truth of cause and effect, self, what have you, the world of this and that, then there is the ultimate truth of emptiness or no self.

    So on the conventional level we can have something that goes from life to life without negating the ultimate nature of phenomena.
    Person, can you try the link again? i tried to click but it didnt work

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    there are many suttas you can find where the Buddha is explaining the different relms of exsistance. Each relm we are Born into we always have 2 things, a body of some sort, and consciousness. There is the understanding of a "non self", but in fact there is still some kind of self. Though we can not explain what it is, or where it is...if there is no self, how can you be sitting there reading this?
    The Buddha said that all aspects of body / mind are impermanent, therefore unsatisfactory and not fit to be regarded as self.

    You might find it helpful to read this sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html

  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran


    Person, can you try the link again? i tried to click but it didnt work

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    edited April 2012
    A soul is seen as a permanent self continuum, The mind is a selfless continuum a large difference.
  • Yes, but The Buddha very clearly points out a great number of times that we are born into different realms, and each time we have a body and mind...yes it is impermanent...but think of it this way, I have been a human being in this life for 30 years, even though this is impermanent...my body will brweak up and die, I am in this very momment still a human being....One day that will change, I will be reborn someplace else, and the same thing will happen.
    Even hell is not forever, once our karma has been exhausted in hell we again die and are reborn...and on and on it goes...so there has to be a "something" a "self" for there to be change. For there to say "I am impermenent" ...there is an "I".
  • There is change. No changing thing.

    Just change.
  • and my spelling today is fairly horrific for some reason
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited April 2012
    there are many suttas you can find where the Buddha is explaining the different relms of exsistance. Each relm we are Born into we always have 2 things, a body of some sort, and consciousness. There is the understanding of a "non self", but in fact there is still some kind of self. Though we can not explain what it is, or where it is...if there is no self, how can you be sitting there reading this? how can there be buddhism for us to know? there is reality and there is a "self"...But this self that changes, and is born into another realm, or even human or animal can be called a soul....or spirit, or even energy if you like. The buddha never said there is no soul.
    Here is an example of what I am talking about...

    Suttanta Pitaka > Majjhima Nikāya > Suññata Vagga (10 of 10) > Devaduta Sutta(The Heavenly Messengers.) >

    MN 130: Devaduta Sutta(The Heavenly Messengers.)

    I heard thus.

    At one time the Blessed One was living in the monastery offered by Anaathapindika in Jeta’s grove in Saavatthi. The Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus from there. ‘Bhikkhus, like a man standing between two houses with doors standing adjacently would see people entering, leaving, wandering and roaming in the two houses.Likewise I see with my heavenly eye purified beyond human, beings disappearing and appearing, unexalted and exalted, beautiful and ugly, in heaven and in hell. I see beings according their actions: These good beings conducting well by body, speech and mind, not blaming noble ones, developping right view, bearing the right view of actions, at the break up of the body, after death, go to increase, are born in heavenThese good beings conducting well by body, speech and mind, not blaming noble ones, developping right view, bearing the right view of actions, at the break up of the body, after death, are born with humans. These good beings mis -conducting by body, speech and mind, blaming noble ones, developping wrong view, bearing the wrong view of actions, at the break up of the body, after death,.

    are born in the sphere of ghosts These good beings misconducting by body, speech and mind, blaming noble ones, developping wrong view, bearing the wrong view of actions, at the break up of the body, after death, are born with animals.These good beings misconducting by body, speech and mind, blaming noble ones, developping wrong view, bearing the wrong view of actions, at the break up of the body, after death, decrease, and are born in hell."

    Now look at this next part...

    " Bhikkhus, the warders of hell take him by his hands and feet and show him to the king of the under world ‘Lord, this man is unfriendly, not uniting, not chaste, does not honour the elders in the family, mete him the suitable punishment"

    Notice how the Buddha says the wardens take this being by the hands and feet? this clearly shows we have a body even in hell...but the body cannot exsist without consciousness...the fact that we are reborn to different places, with different bodies according to our karma, tells us very plainly and clearly there is a self...

    Other sutta's say "dragged to hell"

    What is the thing that is being dagged? Again, the buddha NEVER SAID "NO SUCH THING AS A SOUL" So we can saefly call it a soul...Or spirit, or A bundle of energy....it is this "thing" that is however changing, still a self.

    Now human...later maybe an animal, maybe a deva, maybe a ghost, maybe in Hell....But we clearly have a "soul" that goes to these places.






    How about not thinking again...and again... and again . Soul... no soul self.... no self. View in Buddhism is skilful means... View is means in Buddhism. Anatman is an antidote to an assumption bound up in Dukkha... not a metaphysical pronouncement.

    If someone thinks that practising Buddhism means arriving at a metaphysical position.. that is barking up the wrong tree. It is also why in Buddhism it is recommended that people take Refuge and practice with the support of a Sangha... and a teacher. lest they completely miss the point. Which is easy to do because the point is very simple and direct and experiential and addressed as a matter of Dukkha,

  • Here is the problem and what I resolved for myself. Firstly, when the buddha spoke nothing was recorded for at least 100 or so years of his teachings, secondly he spoke in a language which quite often does not translate all that well into English. Heck, even sometimes in Thai you cannot describe a certain emotion or word because it simply does not translate.
  • if there is just change, what is the thing that gets dragged to hell? The word dragged is desribing an action...therefore something also has to exsist in order to dragg another something else
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    ...there is an "I".
    No, not really.. ;)
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    edited April 2012
    Yes, but The Buddha very clearly points out a great number of times that we are born into different realms, and each time we have a body and mind...yes it is impermanent...but think of it this way, I have been a human being in this life for 30 years, even though this is impermanent...my body will brweak up and die, I am in this very momment still a human being....One day that will change, I will be reborn someplace else, and the same thing will happen.
    Even hell is not forever, once our karma has been exhausted in hell we again die and are reborn...and on and on it goes...so there has to be a "something" a "self" for there to be change. For there to say "I am impermenent" ...there is an "I".
    This perceived I is self grasping Ignorance, it causes Samsara.
    The mind is a self less continuum, Self dissolves at the time of death and is reborn according to various karma that the mind carries into one of the 6 realms. If this was not so Buddha would not have referenced time without beginning and so forth in the Suttas and Liberation being an escape from cyclic rebirth...etc.
  • That is your assumption.

    There is no thing or essence. There are appearances but they are empty of thingness.

    Views of existence, non existence, both and neither do not apply to reality.

    There is suffering, no suffer.

    There is happiness, no being exeriencing the happiness. Just happiness experiencing itself as itself. Then gone like a bubble.
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    if there is just change, what is the thing that gets dragged to hell?

    You might find it helpful to investigate dependent origination. The general principle is that of dependent arising.
  • Yes, but The Buddha very clearly points out a great number of times that we are born into different realms, and each time we have a body and mind...yes it is impermanent...but think of it this way, I have been a human being in this life for 30 years, even though this is impermanent...my body will brweak up and die, I am in this very momment still a human being....One day that will change, I will be reborn someplace else, and the same thing will happen.
    Even hell is not forever, once our karma has been exhausted in hell we again die and are reborn...and on and on it goes...so there has to be a "something" a "self" for there to be change. For there to say "I am impermenent" ...there is an "I".
    This perceived I is self grasping Ignorance, it causes Samsara.
    The mind is a self less continuum, Self dissolves at the time of death and is reborn according to various karma that the mind carries into one of the 6 realms. If this was not so Buddha would not have taught references time without beginning and so forth in the Suttas and Liberation being an escape from cyclic rebirth...etc.
    yes I agree with this and understand...Im not very keen on staying on this wheel forever trust me. But Im trying to get my point across to...granted whats more important is to follow the 8 fold path and not be concerned about these other matters...but the Buddha saw it as important to tell us about these places, perhaps to help people remember what could happen if you do Bad karama.

    Basically I am agreeing with all of you, but its difficult to put these things into words.

  • Although I believe in literal re-birth myself, I have gone through the whole 'gotta get my opinion out there' phase, and also the trying to prove it to myself and others. IF it exists, then okay it exists, that is for later when you die. The only thing you can about it is to focus on the present moment by generating compassion and wisdom so if in fact rebirth is an actual phenomena, you will have created the best possible outcome for it.
  • *Karma*

    wow kashi...
  • Tom,
    I agree with you as well...If you think about though...everytime you post something, your getting your opinion out there lol!
    The point Im trying to make is...there is a self, but theres not a self...but its not possible to be anything, human or otherwise, unless there is something that is us.
    Some call it true nature, some call it soul...ect ect...

    it does not matter that these things are always changing. The point is, there IS SOMETHING that is changing.
    and The Buddha clearly shows us different things that can happen to this "thing" "i" "self" "being" ect ect.

    So I suggest its not against the Buddhas teaching to say "soul" as part of a language we call english.
  • meaning a word for it...not that a soul is part of a language lol...my bad.
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    I am in this very momment still a human being....
    Didn't the Buddha teach that this idea was delusional?
    "Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever form, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that form must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

    If you say "I am a human being", aren't you basically saying the opposite of what is said above?
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    .....What Nagarjuna is pointing to is that believing things are impermanent involves a contradiction. First we posit separate, persisting things (in effect, absolute objects); and then we refer to them as impermanent (that is relative). What we fail to see is that we are still holding to a view of substance. We don't really appreciate the thoroughgoing nature of change, the thorough-going nature of selflessness.

    We don't really appreciate the thoroughgoing nature of change, the thorough-going nature of selflessness. Nagarjuna makes it abundantly clear that impermanence (the relative) is total, complete, thoroughgoing, Absolute. It's not that the universe is made up of innumerable objects in flux. There's Only flux. Nothing is (or can be) riding along in the flux, like a cork in a stream; nothing actually arises or passes away. There's only stream.

    ..... That forms appear to come and go cannot be denied. But to assume the existence of imaginary persisting entities and attach them to these apparent comings and goings is delusion....

    http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/04/buddhism-is-not-what-you-think.html?m=0
  • What you call human is a karmic vision enforced upon you by your karma.

    For instance we see a cup as a cup, when in fact is a multitude of colors, which create a shape between itself and the negative shape. Thus with light we distinguish it as form. Not only that we give it three dimensions in relationship to the fixed location we place upon the cup and ourselves. Then we say this is a cup based on its function, etc.

    But to a dog, there is no color, it is a possible chew toy.

    But that doesn't mean there is some kind of human or dog that objectively exists and an unchanging entity.

    The human is also color and there is no distinguishing the body from anything else in the field of vision. The distinction is clinging to sensations and concepts and changing them all together to form what we call "my" body.

    Or if you think the mind is human, where is the mind? Who is the mind? No concepts and references points can even touch the mind. The mind is clear and void. Even thoughts that reference a self are clear and void. A thought appears then gone. It doesn't appear to a who, where or when. These are projected points of references.




  • Try consciousness?? As the Dalai Lama says it is a continuum that goes from being to being. Anyway, for your viewing pleasure, check this out.

    http://www.buddhanet.net/3-gqga.htm
  • Lady_AlisonLady_Alison Veteran
    edited April 2012
    Thank you for posting this. I have been waiting for someone to bring up this topic without completely dismissing the "soul"... it also in many ways correlate with the abrahamic faiths. Judaism and islam agree in a temporary hell (meant for purifying the soul from bad deeds) catholim has a purgatory and eternal hell.

    Very interesting thread.
    Yes, but The Buddha very clearly points out a great number of times that we are born into different realms, and each time we have a body and mind...yes it is impermanent...but think of it this way, I have been a human being in this life for 30 years, even though this is impermanent...my body will brweak up and die, I am in this very momment still a human being....One day that will change, I will be reborn someplace else, and the same thing will happen.
    Even hell is not forever, once our karma has been exhausted in hell we again die and are reborn...and on and on it goes...so there has to be a "something" a "self" for there to be change. For there to say "I am impermenent" ...there is an "I".
  • seeker,

    "I am a human being" does not mean "I AM" as in something that will not change...I said a few times that all these things change...I have a human mind, and a human body, but its not the ultimate "me"

    are you suggesting that you do not have a human mind?

    Animals think differently as someone else mentioned above, a cup is a "cup" to the human mind, but to a dog maybe its a chew toy. My point is not getting across I see.

    Im agreeing but suggesting something that should not be so hard to understand.

    We say "tree"...but the tree comes to "being" from causes and effects...ints inter connected to non-tree elements. Same with everthing else...but The Buddha never said a tree can reach enlightenment...it does not have the kind of consciance mind like that of a humn. in fact, You Can ONLY reach enlightenment during human form.

    There is something special about being human....animals and plants cant know the dhamma.

    Again, there is something that we "are"...always changing, but in short we go from one form to the next...thats not possible if there is no "self"

    I follow Theravada buddhism, so the concept "nothing exsists" or "mind only" is not a notion that corisponds to the the buddhas teaching, and therefore I care nothing about these ideas.
  • Thanks for your comment LadyAlison,

    Im hoping im not making any enimes here, Im trying to be very straight forward with what I hope to get across. I urge other people to re-read what you just quoted me saying there.

    =)
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited April 2012
    @kashi. You say you are a follower of Theravada Buddhism?..



    Then here you go.. in a nutshell.
    The Blessed One was once living at Kosambi in a wood of simsapa trees. He picked up a few leaves in his hand, and he asked the bhikkhus, ‘How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, which is more, the few leaves that I have picked up in my hand or those on the trees in the wood?

    ‘The leaves that the Blessed One has picked up in his hand are few, Lord; those in the wood are far more.’

    ‘So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the Holy Life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them. And what have I told you? This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. That is what I have told you. Why have I told it? Because it brings benefit, and advancement in the Holy Life, and because it leads to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. So bhikkhus, let your task be this: This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’

    [Samyutta Nikaya, LVI, 31]

    speculation about an essential self-substance is beside the point.


  • Yes, and I understand and know this...but I also quoted the Buddha as well 2 times up in the OP....
    So there is something of importance to what I quoted also. But I do thank you for this also important teaching Richard.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited April 2012
    Do you think that the point of Buddhism is to come to a position... about self or no self? ..or is this just one of those interesting things?
  • Never said nothing exists or mind only.
    I understand your position.

    Check this out:

    "
    Anatta or soul-lessness

    This Buddhist doctrine of rebirth should be distinguished from the theory of reincarnation which implies the transmigration of a soul and its invariable material rebirth. Buddhism denies the existence of an unchanging or eternal soul created by a God or emanating from a Divine Essence (Paramatma).

    If the immortal soul, which is supposed to be the essence of man, is eternal, there cannot be either a rise or a fall. Besides one cannot understand why "different souls are so variously constituted at the outset."

    To prove the existence of endless felicity in an eternal heaven and unending torments in an eternal hell, an immortal soul is absolutely necessary. Otherwise, what is it that is punished in hell or rewarded in heaven?

    "It should be said," writes Bertrand Russell, "that the old distinction between soul and body has evaporated quite as much because 'matter' has lost its solidity as mind has lost its spirituality. Psychology is just beginning to be scientific. In the present state of psychology belief in immortality can at any rate claim no support from science."

    Buddhists do agree with Russell when he says "there is obviously some reason in which I am the same person as I was yesterday, and, to take an even more obvious example if I simultaneously see a man and hear him speaking, there is some sense in which the 'I' that sees is the same as the 'I' that hears."

    Till recently scientists believed in an indivisible and indestructible atom. "For sufficient reasons physicists have reduced this atom to a series of events. For equally good reasons psychologists find that mind has not the identity of a single continuing thing but is a series of occurrences bound together by certain intimate relations. The question of immortality, therefore, has become the question whether these intimate relations exist between occurrences connected with a living body and other occurrence which take place after that body is dead."

    As C.E.M. Joad says in "The Meaning of Life," matter has since disintegrated under our very eyes. It is no longer solid; it is no longer enduring; it is no longer determined by compulsive causal laws; and more important than all, it is no longer known.

    The so-called atoms, it seems, are both "divisible and destructible." The electrons and protons that compose atoms "can meet and annihilate one another while their persistence, such as it is, is rather that of a wave lacking fixed boundaries, and in process of continual change both as regards shape and position than that of a thing."[11]

    Bishop Berkeley who showed that this so-called atom is a metaphysical fiction held that there exists a spiritual substance called the soul.

    Hume, for instance, looked into consciousness and perceived that there was nothing except fleeting mental states and concluded that the supposed "permanent ego" is non-existent.

    "There are some philosophers," he says, "who imagine we are every moment conscious of what we call 'ourself,' that we feel its existence and its continuance in existence and so we are certain, both of its perfect identity and simplicity. For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call 'myself' I always stumble on some particular perception or other -- of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never catch myself... and never can observe anything but the perception... nor do I conceive what is further requisite to make me a perfect non-entity."

    Bergson says, "All consciousness is time existence; and a conscious state is not a state that endures without changing. It is a change without ceasing, when change ceases it ceases; it is itself nothing but change."

    Dealing with this question of soul Prof. James says -- "The soul-theory is a complete superfluity, so far as accounting for the actually verified facts of conscious experience goes. So far no one can be compelled to subscribe to it for definite scientific reasons." In concluding his interesting chapter on the soul he says: "And in this book the provisional solution which we have reached must be the final word: the thoughts themselves are the thinkers."

    Watson, a distinguished psychologist, states: "No one has ever touched a soul or has seen one in a test tube or has in any way come into relationship with it as he has with the other objects of his daily experience. Nevertheless to doubt its existence is to become a heretic and once might possibly even had led to the loss of one's head. Even today a man holding a public position dare not question it."

    The Buddha anticipated these facts some 2500 years ago.

    According to Buddhism mind is nothing but a complex compound of fleeting mental states. One unit of consciousness consists of three phases -- arising or genesis (uppada) static or development (thiti), and cessation or dissolution (bhanga). Immediately after the cessation stage of a thought moment there occurs the genesis stage of the subsequent thought-moment. Each momentary consciousness of this ever-changing life-process, on passing away, transmits its whole energy, all the indelibly recorded impressions to its successor. Every fresh consciousness consists of the potentialities of its predecessors together with something more. There is therefore, a continuous flow of consciousness like a stream without any interruption. The subsequent thought moment is neither absolutely the same as its predecessor -- since that which goes to make it up is not identical -- nor entirely another -- being the same continuity of kamma energy. Here there is no identical being but there is an identity in process.

    Every moment there is birth, every moment there is death. The arising of one thought-moment means the passing away of another thought-moment and vice versa. In the course of one life-time there is momentary rebirth without a soul.

    It must not be understood that a consciousness is chopped up in bits and joined together like a train or a chain. But, on the contrary, "it persistently flows on like a river receiving from the tributary streams of sense constant accretions to its flood, and ever dispensing to the world without the thought-stuff it has gathered by the way."[12] It has birth for its source and death for its mouth. The rapidity of the flow is such that hardly is there any standard whereby it can be measured even approximately. However, it pleases the commentators to say that the time duration of one thought-moment is even less than one-billionth part of the time occupied by a flash of lightning.

    Here we find a juxtaposition of such fleeting mental states of consciousness opposed to a superposition of such states as some appear to believe. No state once gone ever recurs nor is identical with what goes before. But we worldlings, veiled by the web of illusion, mistake this apparent continuity to be something eternal and go to the extent of introducing an unchanging soul, an atta, the supposed doer and receptacle of all actions to this ever-changing consciousness.

    "The so-called being is like a flash of lightning that is resolved into a succession of sparks that follow upon one another with such rapidity that the human retina cannot perceive them separately, nor can the uninstructed conceive of such succession of separate sparks."[13] As the wheel of a cart rests on the ground at one point, so does the being live only for one thought-moment. It is always in the present, and is ever slipping into the irrevocable past. What we shall become is determined by this present thought-moment.

    If there is no soul, what is it that is reborn, one might ask.

    Well, there is nothing to be reborn.

    When life ceases the kammic energy re-materializes itself in another form. As Bhikkhu Silacara says: "Unseen it passes whithersoever the conditions appropriate to its visible manifestation are present. Here showing itself as a tiny gnat or worm, there making its presence known in the dazzling magnificence of a Deva or an Archangel's existence. When one mode of its manifestation ceases it merely passes on, and where suitable circumstances offer, reveals itself afresh in another name or form."

    Birth is the arising of the psycho-physical phenomena. Death is merely the temporary end of a temporary phenomenon.

    Just as the arising of a physical state is conditioned by a preceding state as its cause, so the appearance of psycho-physical phenomena is conditioned by cause anterior to its birth. As the process of one life-span is possible without a permanent entity passing from one thought-moment to another, so a series of life-processes is possible without an immortal soul to transmigrate from one existence to another.

    Buddhism does not totally deny the existence of a personality in an empirical sense. It only attempts to show that it does not exist in an ultimate sense. The Buddhist philosophical term for an individual is santana, i.e., a flux or a continuity. It includes the mental and physical elements as well. The kammic force of each individual binds the elements together. This uninterrupted flux or continuity of psycho-physical phenomenon, which is conditioned by kamma, and not limited only to the present life, but having its source in the beginningless past and its continuation in the future — is the Buddhist substitute for the permanent ego or the immortal soul of other religions"

    http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htm
  • These guys at NB wont become your enemies...they will jog your logic and ask ALOT of questions.

    You're doing fine, I'm following. While we can't prove the existence of soul, we can't disprove it.

    At death, the body remains and the "thing" that makes up who you are as kashi or Alison exits.

  • Thats not the point at all...at the same time to be fair, Im posting a thread about something I think is of some value...do you not do the same thing?
    Many people follow a lot of different "buddhism's" and all have their own ideas about what that is. Do you think the goal in buddhism is to keep being reborn again and agian non stop as a hum being until all beings have reached enlightenment much like a Bodhisattva does? To me, that is not buddhism, but to others it is.
    I am not going to have a petty arguement over this if thats where this will lead.
  • In Mil. it is said:

    "Now, Venerable Nāgasena, the one who is reborn, is he the same as the one who has died, or is he another?"

    "Neither the same, nor another" (na ca so na ca añño).
    "Give me an example."
    "What do you think, o King: are you now, as a grown-up person, the same that you had been as a little, young and tender babe? "
    "No, Venerable Sir. Another person was the little, young and tender babe, but quite a
    different person am I now as a grown-up man . " . . .
    "... Is perhaps in the first watch of the night one lamp burning, another one in the middle
    watch, and again another one in the last watch?"
    "No, Venerable Sir. The light during the whole night depends on one and the same lamp.''
    "Just so, o King, is the chain of phenomena linked together. One phenomenon arises,
    another vanishes, yet all are linked together, one after the other, without interruption. In
    this way one reaches the final state of consciousnes neither as the same person. nor as
    another person.''

    Also, in the //Milindapanha// the King asks Nagasena:
    "What is it, Venerable Sir, that will be reborn?"
    "A psycho-physical combination (//nama-rupa//), O King."
    "But how, Venerable Sir? Is it the same psycho-physical
    combination as this present one?"

    "No, O King. But the present psycho-physical combination produces
    kammically wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities, and
    through such kamma a new psycho-physical combination will be
    born."
  • my last comment was to richard by the way. Forgot to quote him.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    @kashi. You say you are a follower of Theravada Buddhism?..



    Then here you go.. in a nutshell.
    The Blessed One was once living at Kosambi in a wood of simsapa trees. He picked up a few leaves in his hand, and he asked the bhikkhus, ‘How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, which is more, the few leaves that I have picked up in my hand or those on the trees in the wood?

    ‘The leaves that the Blessed One has picked up in his hand are few, Lord; those in the wood are far more.’

    ‘So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the Holy Life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them. And what have I told you? This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. That is what I have told you. Why have I told it? Because it brings benefit, and advancement in the Holy Life, and because it leads to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. So bhikkhus, let your task be this: This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’

    [Samyutta Nikaya, LVI, 31]

    speculation about an essential self-substance is beside the point.


    Funny, when I read that I come to a different conclusion.

    That there are many things in the world that Buddha did not teach about. He focused on suffering and how to be relieved of it.

  • @kashi...(breath) you are so passionate, and that's good.

    I imagine that suttas as well as verses from any book are subjected to INTERPRETATION... the discussion above is people posting various interpretations on the subject. No one here will be ugly to you..we all come with our view in respect.

    :)
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited April 2012
    I don't want to come across as some kind of self ordained teacher or anything like that.. But in practice... with time.... nothing fancy... the question of self vs. no-self is settled.

    Not "answered"... but settled , along with all metaphysical questions and answers. It is not settled in the sense of being left aside because it is imponderable... but uprooted along with all metaphysical doubt and confusion. This is not a big deal "Enlightenment".... it is a matter of course... with just doing it. Lots of people settle it.. in practice. It is not a big deal.


    anyway.. now I'm avoiding work.. so I better go.

  • These guys at NB wont become your enemies...they will jog your logic and ask ALOT of questions.

    You're doing fine, I'm following. While we can't prove the existence of soul, we can't disprove it.

    At death, the body remains and the "thing" that makes up who you are as kashi or Alison exits.

    Actually philosophically one can deconstruct the thingness of body, mind or whatever we consider self.

    And experientially through meditation one can come to the conclusion that there is no enduring soul or entity.


  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Thats not the point at all...at the same time to be fair, Im posting a thread about something I think is of some value...do you not do the same thing?
    Many people follow a lot of different "buddhism's" and all have their own ideas about what that is. Do you think the goal in buddhism is to keep being reborn again and agian non stop as a hum being until all beings have reached enlightenment much like a Bodhisattva does? To me, that is not buddhism, but to others it is.
    I am not going to have a petty arguement over this if thats where this will lead.
    Kashi, keep right on talking. It's a breath of fresh air. I'm not saying I agree with everything you're writing, but you have an open mind, and sometimes that's a rarity here. Some people here talk in circles because it sounds cool and they like to portray themselves as being very deep. Some people here are very sincere and have much wisdom. Some people here follow the Precepts. Some people do a lot of their talking about Buddhism in bars. Some people here believe in Buddhist principles because they admire them and find wisdom in them. Others have embraced Buddhism simply because it is the opposite of what they were brought up in and they are rebelling.

    So keep on talking. Some of us are actually listening.

  • @Richardh or @taiyaki

    I guess it comes down to western or eastern philosophy.
  • GUYS I HAVE A SMALL REQUEST IF YOU WILL ALLOW!!! PLEASE??

    taiyaki has just posted a ton of stuff for me to read....and I really want to. But I have things to do right now, so im asking for everyone to take a break from this until you see another responce from me...I dont want to be overloaded and get behind on this topic because to be honest, if I come back and theres a ton of posts and I feel that I cant catch up, then I am simply going to be done with it and move on.

    if thats too much to ask Im sorry.

    Talk to you later...depending.


  • Me too. Thank you @taiyaki! I will give it a look too.

    I like this thread! And I agree with @vinlyn your thread is very refreshing...you can be a spiritual mutt like me!
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    Kashi, when you're read up and ready to roll, send me a pm, I'll re-open.

    please allow for any time difference, ok?
This discussion has been closed.