Does Buddhism deny the vernacular common idea of Soul?

Citta

A very clear account of the Orthodox Church's view @Silouan.
I am not sure that it pertains to the OP however...which is to do with the Buddhist view of the soul.

karmablues

Dakini said:

Citta said:

No sorry, 'experts 'can't and don't..
The idea that an individual possesses a ' portion ' of Buddhanature is Eternalism.

This is what's so fascinating about the True Self/Buddhanature sutras! Supposedly the Buddha didn't teach eternalism, and yet, there are texts that discuss not only the True Self, but also that Buddhas reside forever after death in some kind of heaven or Pure Land, or whatever.

This is why some scholars dismiss the last teachings of the Buddha as later additions, and influences from Hinduism. I think it's for every Buddhist to decide for themselves whether they want to take those teachings at face value, or not.

What happens to the Buddha after death is discussed in the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta as follows:

.....
Therefore, Vaccha, the Tathagata, with the destruction, the fading away, the cessation, the letting go, getting rid of all conceivings, all supposings, all I-making, all mine-making and all the latent tendency of conceit, the Tathagata is liberated through not clinging, I say!

“And where, master Gotama, does a monk with such a liberated mind arise (after death)?”

“‘Arises,’ Vaccha, does not apply.”

“Then, master Gotama, it does not arise?”

“‘Does not arise,’ Vaccha, does not apply.”

“Then, master Gotama, it both arises and does not arise?”

“‘Both arises and does not arise,’ Vaccha, does not apply.”

“Then, master Gotama, it neither arises nor does not arise?”

“‘Neither arises nor does not arise,’ Vaccha, does not apply.”

“How is it, master Gotama, that when master Gotama is asked, ‘And where, master Gotama, does monk with such a liberated mind arise?’ he answers that ‘arises’ does not apply?

When asked, ‘Then, master Gotama, it does not arise?” he answers that ‘does not arise’ does not apply?

When asked, ‘Then, master Gotama, it both arises and does not arise?’ he answers that ‘both arises and does not arise’ does not apply’?

When asked, ‘Then, master Gotama, it neither arises nor does not arise?’ he answers that ‘neither arises nor does not arise’ does not apply?”

Master Gotama, I have fallen into not knowing here, I am confused here, and even that measure of satisfaction [and confidence] I had from our previous conversation, that too is lost to me!”

“You should be not knowing, Vaccha, you ought to be confused. Deep indeed, Vaccha, is this Dharma, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, not won by (mere) reasoning, subtle, to be experienced by the wise—it is hard for you to know, being one holding a different view, keeping different priorities, having different likes, following a different practice, following a different teaching.

As such, Vaccha, I shall question you in return about this: answer as you please.
Now, what do you think, Vaccha: suppose there were a fire burning before you, would you know it?”

“Master Gotama, if there were a fire burning before me, I would know it.”

“Suppose, Vaccha, someone were to ask you: ‘This fire that is burning before you, depending on what does it burn?’ What, Vaccha, would be your answer?”

“Master Gotama, on being asked thus, I would answer: ‘This fire burning before me burns depending on grass and wood.’”

“Suppose, Vaccha, this fire before you were to go out, would you know it?”

“Master Gotama, if this fire before me were to go out, I would know it.”

“Now suppose, Vaccha, you were asked, ‘When that fire before you went out in which direction has it gone—to the east, or to the west, or to the north, or to the south?’ How would you answer it?”

“It does not apply, master Gotama! The fire had burned depending on grass and wood. When that fuel is used up and it does not receive any more fuel, being without fuel, it would be regarded as quenched."

“In the same way, Vaccha, the Tathagata has abandoned the form by which one describing him would use. It is cut off at the root, made like a palm-tree stump, done away with so that it is not subject to further growth. The Tathagata, Vaccha, is liberated from reckoning in terms of form: he is profound, immeasurable, unfathomable as the great ocean so that ‘arises’ does not apply, ‘does not arise’ does not apply, ‘both arises and does not arise’ does not apply, ‘neither arises nor not arise’ does not apply.

The Tathagata has abandoned the feeling by which one describing him would use. It is cut off at the root,…not subject to further growth.

The Tathagata, Vaccha, is liberated from reckoning in terms of feeling: he is profound, immeasurable, unfathomable as the great ocean so that ‘arises’ does not apply, ‘does not arise’ does not apply, ‘both arises and does not arise’ does not apply, ‘neither arises nor not arise’ does not apply.

The Tathagata has abandoned the perception by which one describing him would use. It is cut off at the root,…not subject to further growth.

The Tathagata, Vaccha, is liberated from reckoning in terms of perception: he is profound, immeasurable, unfathomable as the great ocean so that ‘arises’ does not apply, ‘does not arise’ does not apply, ‘both arises and does not arise’ does not apply, ‘neither arises nor not arise’ does not apply.

The Tathagata has abandoned the formations by which one describing him would use. It is cut off at the root,…not subject to further growth.

The Tathagata, Vaccha, is liberated from reckoning in terms of formations: he is profound, immeasurable, unfathomable as the great ocean so that ‘arises’ does not apply, ‘does not arise’ does not apply, ‘both arises and does not arise’ does not apply, ‘neither arises nor not arise’ does not apply.

The Tathagata has abandoned the consciousness by which one describing him would use. It is cut off at the root, made like a palm-tree stump, done away with so that it is not subject to further growth.

The Tathagata, Vaccha, is liberated from reckoning in terms of consciousness: he is profound, immeasurable, unfathomable as the great ocean so that ‘arises’ does not apply, ‘does not arise’ does not apply, ‘both arises and does not arise’ does not apply, ‘neither arises nor not arise’ does not apply.”

The Buddha thus seems to be saying that speaking of what happens to an enlightened person such as himself after death as if s/he exists (eternalism), does not exist (annihilationism), both, or neither, all these four possibilities do not apply to the situation because what happens cannot be expressed in the limited systems of categories and concepts available in our human thought and language.

Straight_Man

Citta said:

( Do American learner drivers have 'L' plates ? )

No, the learning is done often at the contorls of parent's car. In some places, even in US, even. and hte cars have no special plates. At one time, where I lived in US, parents could pay special to get kids trained in driving by professionals at teaching (not necessarily pro drivers)-- but if you learned with a learner's permit that was not taken away while you were learning, you could pass a driver's test usually.

For those that lapse while driving, after getting a driver's license, some places in US require a Defensive Driving course. You can take such a course and wipe pioints (negative points as to consequences) from your record. If you accumulate too many points in a year's time (typically the time frame is a year) you can lose your driver's license (either suspended for a time or for permanent loss, varies from place to place in US. US is weird, no national law as to age for driving as minimum or as to points to lose license-- that is left to individual states and localities.

So another thing to get used to. For America, not for all countries that speak English language. What can I say, always learning. But,no, no 'L.' plates. Each pair of plates or single plate has a number, and you have to keep car registered and insured (most places require insurance to keep car registered (1-3 year registration).

We grow used to you, you keep trying patiently and grow more valued here, IMHO.

how

In Canada, after the "L" learner sticker you get the "N" new sticker.
Of course you'll never see it unless you look carefully because everyone mounts it sideways to make the cooler " Z " sign.
The revolution is everywhere.

Zayl

See, when someone asks me to define to word "Soul" I define it as "Consciousness" to me, the two words are interchangeable. Something like our higher brain functions, our reasoning centers in our brain. It's what separates us from animals in that we can reason much more efficaciously than they can.

If you're asking me if we have a ghost or something in all of us then no, no I do not believe we do.

Vagabond

So....is the answer "Yes, Buddha did not believe in a soul." ? ?

David

Vagabond said:

So....is the answer "Yes, Buddha did not believe in a soul." ? ?

It seems to depend on the definition of "soul".

If it depends on an individual clinging to identity then as far as I can tell Buddha did not believe in a soul.