No Soul references please.

Victorious

Hi

Sometimes you hear claims that Buddhism denies a soul. That is a bit confusing to me because.

Ignoring the obvious mis-perception in the question that implies that Buddhism claims there is no self which It does not,
Soul and Self are not necessarily the same thing for me.

I often see the terms Atman and Anatta posed against each other. But are they truly each others negations or should the understanding of the concepts be done separate from each other?


I was wondering if anybody could point me to any suttas that explicitly sets the Atman and Anatta in opposition?

Thanks!

Jeffrey

The dammapada chapter on self has some references TO a self. But it does not oppose non-self versus self.

Jason

Victorious said:

I often see the terms Atman and Anatta posed against each other. But are they truly each others negations or should the understanding of the concepts be done separate from each other?

In the Pali Canon, the Buddha almost always talks in terms of self as a process of identity-making or 'I-making' and 'my-making' (ahankara-mamankara) in relation to one or more of the five aggregates, a view that arises due to clinging in regard to the aggregates. For a better understand of what the teachings on anatta mean and how they're used on the path, I suggest Thanissaro Bhikkhu's book Selves & Not-self. I personally find it to be the most balanced and pragmatic approach to the topic.

pegembara

Atman and Anatta are opposites.

Anatta says that there is nothing substantial ie. "soullessness" "no self" "empty of inherent existence"

Basically there is no thing out there that exists from it's own side. Everything is a combination of things or sankhara.

"Sankhara" is a Pali term used for an aggregation, a combination, or an assemblage. The word, is derived from the prefix "sam" meaning "together" and the root "kar" meaning "to make." The two together mean "made together" or "constructed together" or "combined together".

Everything from the subatomic world to the cosmos are indeed sankharas or combination of things. Not only that- these sankharas are constantly changing.

There is nothing substantial in them. Giving these things names or labels does not mean that these sankharas exist in reality. A permanent entity is only a concept, only a name. It does not exist in reality.

By whom was this living being created?
Where is the living being's maker?
Where has the living being originated?
Where does the living being
cease?
(ATTA)

What? Do you assume a 'living being,' Mara?
Do you take a position?
This is purely a pile of fabrications.
Here no living being
can be pinned down.

Just as when, with an assemblage of parts,
there's the word,
chariot,
even so when aggregates are present,
there's the convention of
living being.
(ANATTA)
Vajira Sutta

On one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Ayojjhans on the banks of the Ganges River. There he addressed the monks: "Monks, suppose that a large glob of foam were floating down this Ganges River, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a glob of foam? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any form that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in form?

Phena Sutta

pegembara

The cow-butcher does not get rid of the cow-percept while feeding the cow, driving it to the place of slaughter, tying it and putting it up there, killing it, and even when seeing the dead carcass of the cow; not until he cuts it up and divides it into parts does the perception of a cow disappear. To that butcher sitting (with the meat before him) after cutting up the cow, however, the perception of a cow disappears, and the perception of flesh comes into being. To him, there is not this thought: "I am selling the cow; these people are taking away the cow." But to him, indeed, there occurs this thought: "I am selling flesh; these people indeed, are taking away flesh."...

To the bhikkhu, similarly, the perception of a being or the perception of a person does not disappear as long as he does not reflect, by way of the modes of materiality, in this body as it is placed or disposed in whatsoever position, after sifting thoroughly the apparently compact aggregation. To him who reflects by way of the modes of materiality, however, the perception of a being disappears; the mind gets established by way of the modes of materiality. Therefore, the Blessed One declared: "A bhikkhu reflects on just this body according as it is placed or disposed, by way of the mode of materiality, thinking thus: 'There are, in this body, the mode of solidity, the mode of cohesion, the mode of caloricity, and the mode of oscillation.' O bhikkhus, in whatever manner, a clever cow-butcher or a cow-butcher's apprentice having slaughtered a cow and divided it by way of portions should be sitting at the junction of a cross-road, in the same manner, a bhikkhu reflects... thinking thus: 'There are, in this body, the mode of solidity... And the mode of oscillation.' = Imameva kayam yatha thitam yatha panihitam dhatuso paccavekkhati: atthi imasmim kaye pathavidhatu apodhatu tejodhatu vayodhatuti. Seyyathapi bhikkhave dakkho goghatako va goghatakantevasi va gavim vadhitva catummahapathe bilaso pativibhajitva nissinno assa evameva kho bhikkhave bhikkhu imameva kayam... paccavekkhati atthi imasmim kaye pathavidhatu... vayodhatuti.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html#modes

Jeffrey

http://media.beta.photobucket.com/image/soul/bobbythurman/soul.png

shucks can't get photobucket embed anymore!

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh248/bobbythurman/soul.png

Victorious

@Jeffrey, @Jason, @pegembara

Thank you very much for the answers. I think I have boned out where my misconception arises.

The problem arises in the collision of Buddhist Anatta teaching on one hand and the Christian belief in a soul on the other hand. And the obvious similarity of the Atman and the Soul on the third hand.

The Soul is a dualistic entity that is seperate from the body in Christianity where as the Anatta teaching is about the self or the arising of the self whether that perception of self arises in the body or somewhere else (such as a soul ) .

The concept of Atman is only relevant as Anatta teaching denies a instrinsic value to any thing in this world other than in the minds of people.

I think it is good to keep that in mind while discussing anatta with a christian.

@Jason and @pegembara Thanks for the texts that is more or less how I understand Anatta as well.

@Jeffrey Your cartoon not so much! lol.

Thanks All!
Victor

Songhill

Victorious:

The problem with anattâ vs attâ arises when we fail to realize that the Buddha wants us to distinguish between the first-person (attâ) and the psycho-physical body consisting of material shape, feeling, perception, habitual tendencies and consciousness. In these two passages you can see how the Buddha rejects the psycho-physical body but does not reject the self or the first-person (attâ).

But monks, an instructed disciple [ariya-savako] of the pure ones...taking count of the true men...well trained in the dhamma of the true men, regards material shape as: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self;’ he regards feeling as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards perception as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards the habitual tendencies as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards consciousness as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ And also he regards whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognised, reached, looked for, pondered by the mind as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’ (M. i. 136) (trans. I.B. Horner).

Here is another passage...

But the instructed noble disciple ... does not regard form as self ... nor feeling as self ... nor perception as self ... no volitional formations as self ... nor consciousness as self....He no longer keeps running and revolving around form, around feeling, around perception, around volitional formations, around consciousness. As he no longer keeps running and revolving around them, he is freed from form, freed from feeling, freed from perceptions, freed from volitional formations, freed from consciousness. He is freed from birth, aging, and death; freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; free from suffering, I say" (S. iii. 150). (trans. Bhikkhu Bodhi)

Is the Buddha preaching the absolute denial of self which in Pali is nattha-attâ. The answer is no. So why the No Soul dogma in Buddhism? You'll have to ask a soul-denier.

Victorious

@Songhill Tell me true! Have you developed the ability to read the hearts of others?

Because so many times now we think so alike it really bothers me. He he.

Pleased to meet you!

/Victor

Songhill

Victorious:

Glad to me you, too, old friend.

driedleaf

@Songhill @Victorious
Is a "soul" considered a self? Can we call a soul ours? I don't think soul is a correct definition of atman or atta. I think the idea of "soul" is more closely related to viññana or consciousness. If we can call a soul ours, is it not subject to birth, old age, sickness, death, and dukkha? Please help me understand. Thank you in advance.

Victorious

@driedleaf

I think that, like all other things made up of the mind, the meaning and definition of a Soul vary a bit from individual to individual.


So if you say Soul to a hindu or Soul to a christian it means two diffrent things and has a different subjectively ascribed value.

Buddhism is IMO not concerned with a Soul but with the ego, the sense/experience of self.

We buddhists may use the word "Soul" but in that case we probably use the word to mean something else and with another ascribed value than does a christian or hindu.

I do not think there is a reason to try to define Soul in a buddhist context. We got all the concepts we need to cultivate here and now.

Comparison vise Soul in mainstream Hinduism and Christianity is something eternal.

In Buddhism Anicca postulates that everything is impermanent.

So there seems to be a contradiction right there...?

To answer your question: I do not really know.

Sorry
/Victor

lobster

A sole soul arises and dies with the dissolution of the components that made it arise. What part of it is unique? What part exists in the next arising?

DairyLama

Victorious said:

In Buddhism Anicca postulates that everything is impermanent.

So there seems to be a contradiction right there...?

The traditional formulation runs like this:
Sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe dhamma anatta.

Victorious

@PedanticPorpoise

But that is everything right? Or do you think there could be something outside of that?

/Victor

Songhill

driedleaf said:

@Songhill @Victorious
Is a "soul" considered a self? Can we call a soul ours? I don't think soul is a correct definition of atman or atta. I think the idea of "soul" is more closely related to viññana or consciousness. If we can call a soul ours, is it not subject to birth, old age, sickness, death, and dukkha? Please help me understand. Thank you in advance.

It is very difficult to find a proper English word by which to translate attâ/âtman. These days, translators generally use "self" instead of soul.

We begin to get a very clear picture of what the Buddha meant by attâ/âtman when he contrasts it with the five aggregates (pañca-khandhas) which are not the self (anattâ). We also need to keep in mind that the five aggregates belong to Mara the evil one. (The five aggregates are the bad guys.)

Our self (attâ/âtman) is not any one of the five aggregates consisting of material shape, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness (these make up our psycho-physical body). This also means that we cannot use the five aggregates as a criterion. It is our self that is the criterion. The Buddha said: "The self (in thee), man, knows what is true or false" (AN 1. 149).

DairyLama

Victorious said:

@PedanticPorpoise
But that is everything right? Or do you think there could be something outside of that?
/Victor

Some argue that there is. Though "sabbe dhamma anatta" seems pretty clear, since "dhamma" includes all phenomena, both conditioned and unconditioned.

Victorious

@PedanticPorpoise

Some argue that there is.

That is actually very interesting I will have to look into that. I have never questioned that the postulates encompass everything.

Thanks!

/Victor

jumbles

parts of the imaginal realm, object of consciousness.

Jeffrey

What does sabbe mean @PedanticPorpoise?

Songhill

PedanticPorpoise:

Some argue that there is. Though "sabbe dhamma anatta" seems pretty clear, since "dhamma" includes all phenomena, both conditioned and unconditioned.

The unconditioned is not included in sabbe dhamma. According to the commentary to the Dhammapada sabbe dhamma refers to the five aggregates (Tattha sabbe dhammâ'ti pañcakkhandhâ eva adhippetâ. — 3.406 Dhammapada). Correctly, "sabbe dhamma anatta" means that all these various things are not the soul or the self—certainly not our self.

Another point worth making is with regard to sabbe.

"What, monks, is the All (sabbe)? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & odors, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is termed the All" (S.iv.15).

As you can see, the unconditioned is not included in sabbe. Furthermore, we need to abandon the all which is explained in the next discourse.

Another use of sabbe dhamma is found here:

"All things are unfit (sabbe dhammâ nâlam) to adhere (or incline) to (abhinivesâya )" (S. iv. 50).

Jeffrey

Yes the unconditioned is also ungraspable. It is impossible to say that the unconditioned is conditioned.

DairyLama

Songhill said:

Another point worth making is with regard to sabbe.

"What, monks, is the All (sabbe)? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & odors, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is termed the All" (S.iv.15).

As you can see, the unconditioned is not included in sabbe.

But there are at least 2 meanings of "sabbe" here:
1. All as in "every", eg "sabbe dhamma anatta" meaning every phenomenon is without essence. An adjective.
2. "The All", referring to the 6 sense bases, ie conditioned existence, the subjective world of experience. A noun.

DairyLama

Jeffrey said:

What does sabbe mean @PedanticPorpoise?

See my reply to Songhill, Jeffrey. I'm not an expert but I do know that the meaning of language is always dependent on context, ie words often have different meanings in diffferent places.

Jeffrey

The unconditioned cannot possibly be grasped. That might be part of the problem.

Victorious

For the sake of (my) understanding.

Can our Ego experience the unconditioned?

Yes at certain moments of elavation such as streamentry I guess you could argue that but besides path specific moments like that?

/Victor

RebeccaS

No.

Jeffrey

The ego is not an agent. It is just layers of thoughts and habits.

Victorious

Still, nevertheless,

If you cut me will I not bleed?

Jeffrey

Yes, and there will be a lot of those thoughts going on. Buddha didn't say there was no self he just said that conditioned things are not the self, so I think you will bleed.

RebeccaS

Victorious said:

Still, nevertheless,

If you cut me will I not bleed?

No. Your body will though.

Jeffrey

RebeccaS, I feel that you would have an emergent feeling and thoughts "What is going to happen to me?"

I call the agency of the feeling, the directness of emergent experience, could be called a self.

Chuang Tzu a taoist author from a long time ago said:

“The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?”

Victorious

@Rebecca

But the body is a part of my"self" no?

The five skandhas and all that...? Or how would you understand Rupa?


EDIT: Dont bother to answer I get it. That was double fun!

Jeffrey

@Victorious, I don't think the five skhandas are a self. But the field of mind that everything arises in has three qualities which are always there in a sentient beings experience: awareness, spaciousness, and sensitivity. The skhandas are kinda an analysis of how to categorize. I think the fourth skhanda, sankara is what becomes the enlightened mind??

"The purpose of the Holy Life does not consist in aquiring alms, honour or fame, nor in gaining morality, concentration, or the eye of knowledge. That unshakeable deliverance of the heart, that, indeed is the object of the Holy Life. That is it's essence. That is it's goal."

~Shakyamuni Buddha


So where that quotation says 'heart' I think it is pointing to a liberated emergent awareness.

Victorious

@Jeffrey.

You are so right dude. I had to come back and say or in the morning there is no telling where this thread might end up. .

G'nite

/Victor

lobster

Can our Ego experience the unconditioned?

Our ego tries to experience and condition what essentially has no arising or other conditions. We can experience and function through the ego and through the unconditioned. We might say they are complementary but 'incompatible'. As one increases, so the other is diminished.

Jeffrey

Night. Maybe the thread will go on?? No Songhill to cook things up though

Hint for heating up thread = mention rebirth hehe

DairyLama

Victorious said:

Can our Ego experience the unconditioned?

I'm not sure how "Ego" translates in terms of the 5 aggregates? Is it formations?

Victorious

Very good question actually. I ve spent some time reviewing the DO to understand but I think I will have to dig deeper into the suttas to understand.

Zengo

Buddhism specifically denies the existence of a metaphysical self, which would be the equivalent of an individual soul. According to Buddhist philosophy, all phenomena is empty of inherent existence, a soul is referring to an inherently existing entity, thus Buddhism is claiming that there is no substantial soul or self. Hinduism argues for an atman (self), whereas Buddhism argues for anatman (no-self).

DaltheJigsaw

I'm confused?? I don't understand, is there or isn't there a soul? LOL...

Zengo

According to Buddhism there is no soul.