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.
Buddhism and the No Soul Doctrine
rocala
Explorer
I have been reading an article by Leoni Hodgson - http://www.brisbanegoodwill.com/esoteric-philosophy/buddhism-and-the-no-soul-doctrine-v3/
I found section 3 where the author concludes that Buddha "never said that the soul or self did not exist" particularly interesting.
I would be very glad to read the opinions of others.
0
Comments
Read this a while ago. pertinent to topic and well worth re-reading. Particularly this bit:
All we need to do, is to transcend Dukkha.
Everything else is just chaff in the wind.
The problem is starting from a premise or assumption. The writers assumption is that the Buddha and the author have an eternal soul, incarnating soul, credit and debit karma ethereal harddrive etc.
I may or may not have a soul. Come to think of it I may have sold it for an empty tin of sardines ... frankly I find the whole debate irrelevant. You have a soul. OK, now what? You don't have a soul? Now what?
To me it like asking what do people think about when they are unconscious or their brain has been liquidised, turned to dust ... [shrug]
^^^ agree with @federica, if you want to know about reincarceration, go ask a Theosophist, New Ager, Lamas 'r Us, etc. They don't know but they have wonderful stories ...
That's interesting. Although, what is equally interesting I think is that he never said a soul does exist.
He said that basically such discussion is irrelevant and not conducive to progress along the path.
I don't equate a self with a soul as we are each a self in my view. The only soul I could envision is one we are all aspects of but that would entail positing a self for the ultimate truth.
That's too close to giving it a name like Brahman or Yehweh or something.
I think the soul/no soul comes into play more in vajrayana (or maybe even mahayana) because there is so much focus on non-dualistic thinking in those traditions. If you see yourself as a self, as a soul, as a separate anything, then you contribute to dualistic thinking and thus learning how not to think of yourself as separate from anyone/anything else is a key to understanding those teachings.
It's all very involved, but there is a distinction between Buddhism and Advaita for example.
Such questions can ultimately be answered only by practising and insight, in the meantime we can only work with a set of assumptions.
"Gautama was born Hindu, and received esoteric training in the old Brahmanical secret Schools – whose roots are founded in pre-Vedic Wisdom."
I'm sorry, but I hit that statement early on and it went downhill from there. The author's premise is that the Brahmans had secret schools and instruction that Buddha was only passing onto us, although he kept some of the secrets back like soul migration because we weren't ready for it.
There's just so much wrong with this, but mostly it's because he's pulling this out of thin air with no evidence for it at all and much against it. The Buddha, as a high ranking member of the Brahman caste, would have attended the many ceremonies and sacrifices but this was a strictly Priest driven religion and since Gautama was not a Priest, he would have been given no secret instruction. You support the Priests who do the sacrificing and that's about it.
And asceticism, which Gautama first embraced, is anything but esoteric or secret. It's simple rejection of sensual pleasure through self-denial and abstinence. The yoga-type "watch me suck milk into my bladder through my penis" body control actually came later and it's not so much esoteric as weirdly obsessive.
The "no-soul" doctrine has been debated since before Buddhism left India.
If by soul, someone means a 'self' of some sort, then I think it's relevant to point out that Gautama did not teach a doctrine of no-self. Roughly, he taught that there may indeed be something called a self ... but there was no such thing as an ABIDING self.
"The acceptance of Atman implies the acceptance of the chariot of Atman – the Soul."
....and out comes Nagarjuna's sunyata tool box at the ready to dismantle
The Buddha did teach that there was an eternal Self, but it wasn't the mundane, ego-based self. It was the "True Self", or Buddhanature, that's inherent, though "dormant" or unrealized, in everyone. According to what are believed to be his last teachings, his Mahaprinirvana sutras.
@rocala
One black friend of mine answered my questions on soul when she said to the raucous laughter of my peers, "Honey, I've seen you dance white boy, just no point in you worrying about soul."
so perhaps
an impromptu video submission here of you dancing might offer you the soul closure that my friend gave me.
^^^^ lolololol...you wrong for that...lololololol
@how -- Love it!
And it brought to mind the wonderful comic musical difficulties of Steve Martin in "The Jerk."
The problem with the 'soul' or 'spirit' is that they are terms that can be used to mean literally anything the person wants or 'needs' them to be. The idea of a soul is a lot like a 'get out of jail free' card in Monopoly. It provides convenient answers and prevents cognitive dissonance, which is often sorely needed to be worked with.
I'm presuming the Buddha had something like this in mind (in the lower rungs of his amazing awareness) when he refused to engage in discussions about a soul. An individual's life, examined as if there were a soul, and again if there weren't, is the same damn life, with the same doings and outcomes. It hasn't done a thing about that person's suffering, unless you count the arbitrary and fleeting 'comfort' of believing what you prefer to be true rather than what is true (whatever that is).
^^^
Everything exists just not eternally. Does that work? Hope so.
On the bright side you can time-travel back to dial-up days with the website formatting. Has a good ole cult feeling to it too. Thank Buddha for wordpress.
It feels like the belief in a soul comes from animistic traditions, once we became self aware we could predict our own deaths.
It might be how we've learnt to deal with death. It doesn't seem as bad when it's a continuum.
I like Alan Watts on rebirth, he says two points and say they are saying the same thing.
1) after you die, you will be reborn but have no memory of your former life. You may as well be someone else.
2) after someone dies, a baby is born.
He also follows up that it doesn't matter where so ever beings exist, they are all "I" we are all of them. But can only experience life through one at a time.
We all know ourselves as I.
One soul but multitude of expressions
My soul looks like Totoro.
On a more serious note, here's what I think. Is there a soul? I don't know. Isn't there a soul? Again, I don't know. Does a God/Gods exist? Again, I don't know. If all these things exist, I'll probably find out when I die and maybe not even then. In the meantime, I'll work on my dukkha, and boy, there's some working to do.
Here's a somewhat lengthy quote from a book I love, called "Old Path, White Clouds", by Thich Nhat Hanh:
That's how it's described in the suttas, where it's said that only a Buddha can recollect previous lives.
In the suttas rebirth is generally discussed in relation to kamma, with beings "reappearing" in various destinations according to their actions. So we reap what we sow.
Of course the principle of kamma can be applied over different time scales - days, years and lifetimes. As for how this works with anatta, you could say that the "me" of tomorrow will not be the same as the"me" of today, but the "me" of tomorrow will have to live with the consequences of the behaviour of the "me" of today. So if you drink too much one day you will suffer a hangover the next.
I tend to view the belief in a Soul as similar to the belief in God, comforting but not necessarily true.
But like I say to my Quaker friends: "What's your priority, comfort or truth?"
No individual sole. No discrete things.
This is the doctrine.
But to me, this does not mean there is no soul, it means that the soul is part of one essence. The only thing, that is everything.
All is one.
One is all.
For me, I hold a vocabularic (lol not a word, made it up) distinction of it for my own uses, but I don't talk about it much because it has such a strong connection to Christianity and people misunderstand what I am talking about. So I don't talk about it. It is just a word I use to differentiate between a deeper part of "my self" rather than my ego. The "watcher" so to speak, the whatever-it-is that knows more than "I" know as long as I can get in touch with it. I don't know what else to call it, and because for me "soul" retains a meaning of something deeper, that is the best I can do. But it doesn't mean I think it to mean an abiding, lasting self, either. It is more for function in daily life than a concern about whether or not it carries on after I die. It is what seems to hold the teachings that I learn, and the ideal way for me to live my life aside from what the ego thinks. When I am in touch with it, I am living in a different way than when I am not.
I know what you mean, I think of it like a more spacious ( larger? ) self which I "connect" with when mindfulness is strong or in meditation, or sometimes just in the natural world or looking at the night sky.
I'm with @Dakini on this one. I thought instead of soul it was called Buddhanature/ Tathāgatagarbha
And the 'characteristics' of this are explained. It's what's left/without the skandhas/aggregates...
Maybe that's separating things into Mahayana...Anyway, I call it Buddhanature.
Exactly, yes, Buddhanature. But everyone experiences similar things in jolts just like we do, they just call it other things. Try sitting at Christmas dinner and saying "I don't believe in the soul, I believe in Buddhanature" LOL For me, I just kind of assume that most people I interact with in my personal life are talking about soul the same way I know Buddhanature to be, but it's easier to go with their vocabulary. They are in touch with a deeper more true part of who they are, they just call it something else. Obviously, when other people say "soul" or whatever, they mean something different,and sadly some of them seem to never have had an experience of being in touch with something deeper
I find I have a hard time discussing such topics with them because we aren't on the same page even using the same words. But people I know well,I know we are talking about the same thing and there seems little point in mincing words to tell them I refer to it as something else. Most often, I refer to it as a "true self" because people seem to understand that and it lacks religious connection, while soul or Buddhanature does not.
Is there something beyond the aggregates?
No...not a thing
That deserves an awesome and a lol.
From the article referred to in the OP.
"In the Anattalakkhana Sutta, Buddha talks about a continuing existence....[When] the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness [Hodgson – thus disenchanted with the skandhas]. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, ‘Fully released.’ He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'”
If there is nothing beyond the aggragates, who/what is discerning that birth is ended?
I always just assumed the concept of a soul was beyond my human reasoning - just as much as eternity.
When I was really searching for the answer to if I really had a soul, my underlying motivation was really my natural fear of death - If I could prove I was eternal I couldn't need to fear absolution.
One day I walked up to death and I was like "Bro, you are destine, so I wont be haunted by your eventuality, and I also wont deny your existence, or ignore your benefits. "
When I had dealt with death I didn't need to prove my eternal nature. When I am to die, if I become a Buddha, or if the molecules of my brain only decompose back into the earth and an elemental cycle, so what? Either way I'm eternal. Hence the grace that comes from the acceptance of impermanence.
Are we searching for the soul, or the guarantee of the preservation of self? Sounds primordial to me. Who's asking the question anyways, the monkey mind or our spiritual nature?
And of course I now realise my own soul when I practice - I glimpse it for a few moments when I meditate - ironically of course, now that I realise our friendship is actually quite enjoyable, if unnecessary.
You tell me.... what do YOU think...?
This Dhamma Wheel discussion on consciousness without surface might be of interest:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=609
I bet nobody at Dhammawheel ever links in to OUR discussions.....)
^^^ I agree and as such, don't waste energy trying to find out if it's true nor argue with the whole interwebz about it either. Trying to grasp the 4 Noble Truths and follow the Eightfold Noble Path is work enough for me.
One definite good thing that has come out of my stumbling along the Path - I don't have to be right. No one does. The less we focus on that, the happier we'll be./
Just my 0.02 denarii
_ /\ _
This is so interesting! Lots of food for thought, here. And it just goes to show how crucial it is to have an accurate translation, if we're to understand the Buddha's teachings correctly.
Also, arriving at an accurate understanding of "consciousness" is important, because some of the Mahayana schools do seem to go out on a limb with their teachings on the subject, coming close to giving consciousness a meaning bordering on "soul".
Thanks for posting this. There's a lot to digest, there. And I assume that the "Jason" posting authoritatively there, is our very own "Jason"?
Yes, that's right. It is all quite complicated, with different nuances across the schools. In the Lankavatara Sutra for example alaya-vijnana ( store consciousness ) is translated as "universal mind". Sometimes people want to push Buddhist ideas in the direction of Advaita, sometimes people tend to impose theistic ideas, consciously or unconsciously.
Yup. He do get around, that boy.....
Tee hee. Just been told I am disrespectful and have no sense of humour by our erstwhile moderators on Dhammawheel.
I think I will have to try harder.
Just sharing ... and now back to the elusive soul ...
Interesting @lobster Usually my accusers say I'm disrespectful and my sense of humour is over-developed.
Ooh, I didn't know this! No wonder debates sometimes rage re: "alaya vijnana"! It's really a key concept in the Mahayana.
Many thanks for this. I have had some time to go through this but need more to make a real study. So far I am I agree with Dakini. Also grateful for the intro to Dhammawheel.
Just realised I have not posted on Dhammawheel for years
I was confused with their offspring which is tantra orientated.
Must visit sometime and remember to treat them like theravadin elders and not unicyclists at a hinayana circus conference. We are the Sangha Borg. Resistence is futile. You will be head shaved and assimulated.
Too wikid?
Must be kind to the dharma police ... Must be kind to the dharma police ... Must be kind to the dharma police ...
They were right @lobster you don't have a sense of humour!
Now you're muddling up your vehicles? Tut tut!
There seems to be a debate about whether it's an individual or universal consciousness, I thought the former, but then what do I know.
Though with my Theravada hat on I'd suggest that the 7th and 8th types of consciousness were only added on to support later Yogachara interpretations....
Well said.
I have to remember I get to keep my body vehicle for as long as I live
But ...
When I die and my body dissolves, up comes a unique set of wonderment or Ms De Ville, the infernal and eternally naughty and says 'OK Crusty, you had your sardines - off to the hell realms with you.'
Says I, 'Surely as a Buddhist I get to reinkarma-nate?'
... and she sends me right back as a red herring ...
No pleasing some wikidees ...
I could be missing something but I don't think we could have one without the other in some degree.
That being subjective or universal consciousness, not necessarily "self" as defined by something unchanging or abiding.