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.
Has Buddhism been wrong about the soul (atta) for 2,000 years?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
and
Mula pariyaya sutta
Here's the TRUTH:
.
"Just as when a man went from his place to another place, and from this again to another, and from this place returned to his own place, the thought then occurred to him: 'I have gone from my place to that place, I have stood there, sat there, spoken there, and been silent there; from that place, however, I have gone to this place, and then I have stood there, sat there, spoken there, and then been silent there;, then I have returned again from this place to my own place'; in the same way do my disciples call to mind many different forms of previous existences"
Maki. Mil. 77th Discourse
Where did the false no soul doctrine come from? The Atthakatha commentary written about 245 BC and revived by Buddhaghosa in 500 AD corrupted the original teachings. At one point it was forbidden to have any individual interpretation of the Sutta outside of the Atthakatha.
Ajahn Maha Boova is(was) a True Arahants
i am lucky because i had a chance to meet Him and asked a question in 2003
i translated this talk into sri lankan language and gave it to several people, but i don't know how many of them see the Truth in it
as in the talk, there are four type of people
'padaparama' who never understand Dhamma in this life time,
vaipachitannu who listen to dhamma but can no understand,
neyya who listen to dhamma and try to understand and be able to understand,
and
uggatithanna who understand dhamma as soon as listening to it like sariputta thero
in which category are you?
The false nihilist no soul doctrine: The 5 aggregates create an illusory "I" that is destroyed at death. Then a couple copulates creating a different germinating material and somehow magically new forces which are equivalent to the dead illusionary self that has died form a new human being. This is just back door nihilism because because the forces springing up in a different germinating material are new and they are no longer the old, meaning the forces that created the previous human being are destroyed forever. The previous person has in effect ceased to exist.
The true Doctrine of the Buddha: anatta = samsara. Therefore atta is the opposite of samsara, unmade, unborn, unfabricated, eternal, immortal, not subject to decay and death....nirvana.
I think you may find that your assertions are mere interpretation, probably based mostly on what you 'want' to hear....
@upekka. What a great karmic outcome to meet Ajahn Maha Boowa. Thank you for sharing his words with us.
Where does the 'soul' interpretation come from? Ignorance perhaps ...
In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent soul in living beings. It is one of the seven beneficial perceptions in Buddhism, and along with Dukkha (suffering) and Anicca (impermanence), it is one of three Right Understandings about the three marks of existence.
The Buddhist concept of Anattā or Anātman is one of the fundamental differences between Buddhism and Hinduism, with the latter asserting that Atman (self, soul) exists.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
The idea that something has to last forever to have meaning is a fallacy anyways.
Maybe this can be helpfull, from Ajahn Chahs teachings. He calls anatta and atta a consept made by a judgmental mind, in the end there is neither atta nor anatta he says.
Question: Are defilements such as greed or anger merely illusory or are they real?
Answer of Ajahn Chah: They are both. The defilements we call lust or greed, or anger or delusion, these are just outward names, appearances. Just as we call a bowl large, small, pretty, or whatever. This is not reality. It is the concept we create from craving. If we want a big bowl, we call this one small. Craving causes us to discriminate. The truth, though, is merely what is. Look at it this way. Are you a man? You can say “yes”. This is the appearance of things. But really you are only a combination of elements or a group of changing aggregates. If the mind is free, it does not discriminate. No big and small, no you and me. There is nothing: anatta ¯, we say, or non-self. Really, in the end there is neither atta nor anatta.
AJahn Chah who dosent like books and teory to much also mentioned one important point from Buddhas teachings:
The basis of buddhism is not something that can be talked about or guessed out, the real basis of buddhism is full knowledge of the truth of reality. If one knows this truth no teaching is nessesary. Because the truth is not something we can put in to words or give away. This is why Buddha said "the enlightened one only points the way".
So.... we need to practice to understand, less talk
The key word here is "unchanging". The Buddha said that nothing is in a permanent state (except the Enlightened state is permanent, the one exception to his impermanence teachings); therefore, the seed consciousness (which Buddhists judiciously avoid calling a "soul", but have at it, if you're so inclined, OP) is ever-evolving, along with its karmic seeds. If it's ever-evolving, and (hopefully) progressing toward Enlightenment, it's nature is not static, not permanent. Yet, it exists.
Happy now, OP?
I don't think the Buddha was wrong about anything, but I don't doubt that some of the interpretations and "commentaries" by mere mortals throughout history have been off the mark, and there are many interpretations out there.
Good point.
If the soul is eternal and unchanging there's no possibility of attaining liberation. What's the point then of all this hard practice? So all the Buddha did was to point out that we have an eternal essence? Sounds like some other religion.
One question to ponder. Is this eternal soul separate from the sense experience? If it isn't, then it cannot be eternal.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.028.nymo.html
There's the unmade, unborn, unfabricated, eternal, immortal, not subject to decay and death....nirvana.
But you're not that! All that you can point to isn't you. It's not possible to for self to know self.
I could, but I find the whole debate tiresome and no longer care to. If one follows the eightfold path the end, it ultimately doesn't matter. Either way, suffering is ended, whether it's the cessation of the causes for suffering and rebirth or the realization of our true self that sets us free. I, also, think it's better to just 'let it be.'
...And that, said John, is that.
Cool. Thanks @Jason.
If the Buddha wanted to declare there is no eternal soul whatsoever he would have said natthatta'ti (there is no soul). Instead he uses an adj. Anatta to point to everything that is impermanent leading to dukkha as without soul and equated natthatta'ti with annihilationism and nihilism (SN 4.400). Hmmmm. I wonder why that is?
"The nihilist...goes to terrible hell...from darkness to darkness" SN 1.96
Anatta is a wonderful tool for meditation. That is it's purpose. So when you meditate with the intention of quieting the mind, you observe that your thoughts, feelings, psycholgical scars etc. pop into the mind against your will. Thus, how can they be the self/soul because you cannot "let my thought be such let my thoughts not be such". You observe them dispassionately and say Anatta, not my self not my soul and then you can let them go because they have nothing to do with you in an ultimate sense. Each level you advance in terms of the 4 Jhanas is simply the stripping away of all that is Anatta, non soul and what you are left with is the silent witness, the citta, the atta spotless and without stain. You cannot make yourself get enlightened in the same way you can't make yourself sleep. When you go to sleep you set up the proper conditions, turn out the lights, close your eyes, lie down etc. then sleep happens to you. Similarly, as you advance to the 4th jhana, you have set up the causes and conditions to allow enlightenment to happen to you. It is a benediction.
All very thought-provoking, OP. My perceptions are to some extent perhaps distorted by the Tibetan approach to it, which has other influences--whether Hindu or shamanist or both is hard to say--and quite clearly believes that consciousness carries forward to future lives (that Mahayana Bodhisattva ideal, you know, of vowing to return as an enlightened being until all worldly suffering is eliminated) and carries recollections of past-life attainments and learning. Reincarnations are said to recognize their own personal objects from past lives, from a bunch of similar items. Is that what the Buddha believed, or is that purely from outside influence?
I wouldn't know. And yet, there are teachings in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition that firmly state there is no soul. They're very careful to call it "consciousness", or the "very subtle mind". But if rebirths of past lamas and enlightened beings are believed to remember teachings they learned and objects they owned in past lives, IDK--it suspiciously looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, so........it's a soul?
Furthermore, if in all Mahayana Buddhism traditions one can actually vow to return to the worldly realm via rebirths with the aim of serving humanity, well...then there must be an "I" to take, and keep that vow. No?
I like thought-provoking discussions. They provoke thought.
My understanding of the Tibetan view is that they would agree with that the citta moves from life to life but the distinction they would make between that and atta or soul would be in describing its character or qualities. They would distinguish their view from that of Hinduism by saying it isn't an eternal, independent essence. Rather it is a series of mind moments, each moment completely dependent upon the last. An analogy would be that of a stack of blocks as opposed to the thread in a necklace. Not one unified identity, but a conglomeration that subsequently gets identified and labeled as unified. So from (some of?) the Tibetan view @LOTUS69 makes a point about nihilism and continuation after death but they wouldn't agree on the nature of the thing that continues.
I'm not %100 on that and different schools have different views, so you may learn something different but that is what I have pieced together over the years.
@Dakini the way my teacher explained it is that when you have reached the point of truly taking Bodhisattva vows, the very vow goes to the core of your consciousness. "You" don't remember taking the vow in your next life, but the intention is supposed to carry through with the consciousness. I can't recall the exact words he used to explain it, but he said that basically it goes beyond the more base layers of things like our personalities, our senses, our memories and other such things that make up our known self. As opposed to our subtle consciousness which we can sense is there but can't really put a finger on it or explain it etc.
When I hear these things being put in that way I can't help but picture us being infinite aspects of the same "life" with progressive stages of awareness.
As if there is a kind of soul that has always been that lives vicariously through our many carnations.
But I digress.
It's fun to think about but I'm to remain agnostic on the issue.
Thank you, @person and @karasti. _/_
But the suttas don't talk about the unconditioned in personal terms, or in terms of an atta/atman. That would be more like Hinduism.
Yes, that is clear from MN1, where the Buddha knows directly, free from conceiving, free from beliefs, opinions and ideas.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html
So the Brahmajala Sutta is really an encouragement to let go of all views, so that we can begin to develop direct knowing, direct insight.
I find this stuff a bit confusing really, like when in the suttas the Buddha is described as remembering his previous lives, suggesting a personal continuity. It's like Buddhism came out of Hinduism, and couldn't quite make the break?
Or that only certain parts of Hinduism are to be let go of and that they were onto something.
Or perhaps someone who is enlightened has access to that stream of consciousness that holds that information. If our stream holds our karma, then it would hold an awful lot of life events for each life, no? If Karma is a result of everything we do. But it's not memories like we know memories, as our memories are easily skewed by other things in our lives. But if Buddha could access his consciousness then it seems to make sense to me that he would be able to see what it holds-what carries forward-while the rest of us cannot.
@karasti, not trying to be argumentative at all but in light of D.O. wouldn't that stream of consciousness kind of have to include not just the previous lives of an individual but all individuals?
I have not formed an opinion but I do find this stuff rather fascinating.
I've had a feeling for years that each of us is living a Jataka tale.
I really don't know. I have my own beliefs, some of which jive with Buddhism (as far as what my teacher teaches) and some do not. I guess I don't get the sense that it would have to be all individuals. In ultimate reality, perhaps. And maybe it was that way for Buddha and he only shared that which people might get something out of or be able to grasp.
How would that idea work in regards to karma? Would we also share in others karma?
Beats me.
I would imagine our own actions are still what we'd need to worry about but I admit to feeling a little responsible for what other beings have done at times.
Karma is one of those things where I figure simpler is best. All effects have causes and every cause is also an effect.
Well I certainly share in others karma. The ill informed, the politically gullible, the spiritually demented (bad enough having to deal with me), the happy bunnies, the paranoid, the crazy, the immature ... and that is just my family members ...
Ay caramba. Buddha save us!
[emergency refuge taking ... lobster begins]
Even if you are filthy stinking rich, have the perfect family, perfect career, perfect life there will still be Dukkha, an underlying unsatisfactoriness and subtle terror underlying everything. Why? Because you and everyone you love is going to die and unless you are enlightened, you have no real answer for this. You may have faith in a religious explanation or God, but there will still be a subtle doubt because faith is not REAL knowledge. This is Avijja, the primordial ignorance and source of all the problems. Even though I disagree with scientific materialists, I respect them because they are at least rational and logical. If you disregard all metaphysics and rely only on an empirical observations of material phenomenon, the logical conclusion is you are born, then die and it's game over. But this is terrifying because it means you are not really REAL but are just a transitory flash in the pan, a mirage heading for the grave and tragic heartbreak and the universe is a random tale told by an idiot with no consequences for evil actions. Without a Buddha having attained supreme enlightenment and explained the Dhamma and path to Nirvana to you that you can walk and EXPERIENCE DIRECTLY FOR YOURSELF, Materialism and Nihilism are the most common sense explanation for the self and reality. So the soul, because it is doubtful and terrified about it's own reality due to this Avijja, develops Tanha, thirst, as a means to compensate for this existential terror. So after death it grasps for new formations and develops a new incarnation and then in life is driven by craven desires in a vain attempt to establish it's "realness", to quench the thirst. Get a big house, fancy car, become a big shot, etc., it is all is an attempt to build up your reality and your solidity to ease this Dukkha. But it fails to give you what you are ultimately seeking and will end in failure because you will die and all your accomplishments will end in dust. It only makes suffering worse for you and the world because it is a slippery slope to greed, hatred and delusion and you will keep coming back to birth, Dukkha and death ENDLESSLY. This is not to say you can't make an honest living and be successful, but it is an issue of intent and motive. You are looking for love in all the wrong faces. Looking for love in all the wrong places. This is why the correct understanding of Anatta is so very important. To not understand the concept correctly, you will be led astray into thinking that the Buddha was saying you don't really exist and your sense of "I" is just an illusion and you have no eternal soul with no solid reality. The Buddha taught that you have to let go of all that is Anatta, not the soul. So how can you do this if you think the reward will be that you will awaken to the fact that you don't really exist and all is just emptiness and nothingness? What the hell kind of enlightenment is that? You will never be able to let go because it will be your worst nightmare realized. It is simply not what the Buddha taught. Mara is very clever. I am. The "I" is the soul the "am" is non soul. A great explanation of the soul and enlightenment from the Indian Saint Ramana Maharashi which in my view is 100% consistent with the Buddha's view of soul:
"Well then,” I said to myself, “this body is dead. It will be carried stiff to the burning ground and there burnt and reduced to ashes. But with the death of this body am I dead? Is the body I? It is silent and inert but I feel the full force of my personality and even the voice of the “I” within me, apart from it. So I am Spirit transcending the body. The body dies but the Spirit that transcends it cannot be touched by death. That means that I am a deathless Spirit.
All this was not dull thought; it flashed through me vividly as living truth which I perceived directly, almost without thought-process. “I” was something very real, the only real thing about my present state, and all the conscious activity connected with my body was centered on that “I”.
From that moment onwards the “I” or Self focussed attention on itself by a powerful fascination. Fear or death had vanished once and for all. Absorption in the Self continued unbroken from that time on. Other thoughts might come and go like the various notes of music, but the “I” continued like the fundamental sruti note that underlies and blends with all the other notes. Whether the body was engaged in talking, reading or anything else, I was still centered on “I”. Previous to that crisis I had no clear perception of my Self and was not consciously attracted to it. I felt no perceptible or direct interest in it, much less any inclination to dwell permanently in it."
http://enlightened-people.com/ramana-maharshis-enlightenment-story/
BUDDHA ON NIHILISM
It was not for the Buddha but for the nihilist (natthika) to deny the Soul! “Nihilists (natthiko) [those who deny the Soul] go to terrible hell”[SN 1.96].
[SN 2.17] ‘Nonbeing (asat, natthiti [views of either sabbamnatthi ‘the all is ultimately not’ (atomism), and sabbam puthuttan ‘the all is merely composite (atoms)’ [SN 2.77] both are heresies of annihilationism])'”.
“The nihilist…goes to terrible hell…from darkness to darkness”. (SN 1.96)
To hold the view that there is “no-Soul” (natthatta) is = to ucchedavada (SN 4.400) [Annihilationism] = natthika (nihilist)
Vimanavatthu #1252-1253 “My name was Piyasi, I held sway over the Kosalans; I held the view of a nihilist (natthikaditthi), was of evil habbit and was miserly; I was an anti-foundationalist/annihilationist then (ucchedavada)….[#1253] “…a recluse Kumarakassapa gave me a talk on the Dhamma and drove from me those (previously held) evil views! (annihilationism/nihilism)
BUDDHA ON SOUL (ATTA)
KN Jatakapali 1441 Akkhakandam: "Atta' ca me so saranam gati ca"…… "The True-Self is the refuge that I have gone unto"
"I leave you now Ananda, having made my Soul the refuge (Saran.am.attano)" DN2.120
Atta'sarana anan'n'asarana............"Soul as a refuge with none other as refuge" DN 2.100
BUDDHA ON NIRVANA
"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that EMANCIPATION from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, EMANCIPATION from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned." (UD 8.3)
I don't think a soul (or whatever term you might want to use for it) is terrified of anything. Our egos are.
This assumes that an answer is needed.
That's kind of a leap. I don't see how one leads to the other.
For who? If I had never heard of Buddha I would still likely not be materialistic nor nihilistic so I have to reject your claim.
Strange.
I don't think either of those things so you must be missing something. I don't believe in individual souls or some magic "nothing" so where do I fall?
One thing obviously wrong with your logic is that nihilism rejects meaning, not necessarily a soul. That having meaning necessitates a soul is only a belief that you put stock in.
There is a middle ground between nihilism and eternalism both of which are extremes to be avoided as far as I understand.
I have always thought the way Lotus is presenting Buddhism. It is great that this thread is continuing. Thanks Lotus.
1) Emptiness doesn't = nothingness
2) In the modern context nihilism really entails a lack of morals and ethics, what you are talking about you sometimes refer correctly as annhilationism. One could be an annhilationist and still have morals, ethics and wholesome values
3) The idea that more than small segments of Buddhism hold some belief in annihilationism is a strawman argument. They generally believe in a continuation of mind after death, the difference with Hinduism is the nature of that continuation not whether there is a continuation.
4)Your words come with a strong amount of moral righteousness and arrogance. I'd recommend you look at the splinter in your eye before looking at the speck in your brother's eye.
Well said.
I loves Sole with parsley source ... think I went wrong again ...
Normal ranting and selective fishing is now resumed. No sentient beings were battered in the production of this post ...
In the Ananda Sutta (SN 44.10), the Buddha remains silent when the wanderer Vacchagotta asks him if there is a self, then again when he asks if there is no self.
The reason for that is:
In different suttas the Buddha states that those things that he has learned but not revealed are greater in number than those that he has not revealed.
And why has he chosen not to reveal them?
Because **they do not lead to cessation of dukkha, to Nirvana. **
This is what the Buddha valued the most.
The core of his teaching is:
This article called "The Not-Self Strategy," by Thanissaro Bhikkhu describes why the Buddha would not define his position as to the self/no-self dilemma, and tries to find a point of agreement from all the seeming contradictions all over the suttas:
https://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/strategy.html
I think you are trying to make Buddhism into another school of Hinduism. Hinduism is fine, but it is not the same as Buddhism.
Nirvana is not described in terms of a soul, but rather as unconditioned and therefore impersonal. And I still don't see how a soul is compatible with sunyata, emptiness.
This line of questioning does make me wonder though.
If there is a "true" self beyond the individual could it be considered a soul even as it would have to be ever-changing so couldn't be a permanent entity?
I am thinking of a literal interpretation of Thich Nhat Hanhs poem Call me by my True Names again.
If it's an ever-changing process with no beginning, wouldn't it still fit with sunyata?
Yes, this is what I'm wondering, too.
What is the reaction every time someone is introduced to the nihilist "no-soul" doctrine of modern Buddhism? They say, "Wait a minute. How can there be reincarnation when there is no eternal soul that can be reincarnated?" The typical reaction of the nihilist so called Buddhist is to dismiss this concern as naive and then to politely throw a bunch of illogical, delusional mumbo jumbo sand into their eyes trying to explain an indefensible, illogical position. It is good for a chuckle watching them twist themselves into illogical, incomprehensible pretzels cloaked as esoteric profundity. Time and time again I have seen the beginner practitioner become frustrated and confused trying to grasp this illogical nonsense. I am here to tell you your initial revulsion against this ridiculous idea was the correct one. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If your position is that there is no transcendent eternal soul, only a conventional "I" that is a transitory, impermanent, delusional mirage created by the compounding of the 5 aggregates then reincarnation, transmigration, rebirth, whatever you want to call it, is IMPOSSIBLE. To say otherwise is illogical. Your physical remnants may carry on as fertilizer for a big tree one day or you might echo on after death in terms of the positive or negative impact on your kids, family, world etc. but in terms of you, there is no there there to carry on to another incarnation nor was there ever a there there in terms of previous incarnations. No karma either because how can an illusion that doesn't really exist have any karma? You might as well say the automatons at Disneyland have karma. If this is your position, then just be a materialist and say you think the Buddha was full of it and dismiss reincarnation all together and that is fine. You are at least now being logical and not embarrassing yourself. Although he denied a mere petty psycho-physical empirical self (anatta = khandhas), as did the Upanishads, the Buddha never held the position that there is no eternal soul (atta) that transcends this, which severs the Gordian Knot of the no soul/reincarnation paradox, and then notice the entire system falls into place perfectly and there is no need for esoteric nonsense because everything is as clear and logical as an unmuddy lake.
Buddha described his path this way: “my teachings are (to be called) Brahmayana (path to the Absolute/Brahman)” SN 5.5.
Buddha condemned nihilism: It was not for the Buddha but for the nihilist (natthika) to deny the Soul! “Nihilists (natthiko) [those who deny the Soul] go to terrible hell”[SN 1.96])
Buddha identified the "Citta" (mind/will/spirit) as differentiated and transcendent to the 5 aggregates and instructed his disciples to turn it away from the 5 aggregates and GATHER IT IN THE REALM OF IMMORTALITY: “Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind (citta, Non-aggregate) away from these; therein he gathers his mind within the realm of IMMORTALITY (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!” [MN 1.436, AN 4.422]
[MN 1.511] “For a long time I have been cheated, tricked and hoodwinked by my citta. For when grasping, I have been grasping onto form, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto feelings, , for when grasping, I have been grasping onto perceptions, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto experiences, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto consciousness.”
Buddha held the Citta in the highest regard in the suttas:
"The purification of one's own mind/will (citta); this is the Doctrine of the Buddha" [DN 2.49]
"How is it that one is called a 'Buddha'?...gnosis that the mind/will (citta) is purified (visuddham)...such is how one is deemed a 'Buddha'." [MN 2.144]
[DN 2.157] "Gotama who is steadfast in mind (citta), inherently quelled from all desires the mighty sage has passed beyond. With mind (citta) limitless (Brahman) he no longer bears sensations; illumined and unbound (nibbana), his mind (citta) is definitely (ahu) liberated."
[SN 3.45] "The mind (citta) being so liberated and arisen from defilements, one is fixed in the Soul as liberation, one is quelled in fixation upon the Soul. Quelled in the Soul one is unshakable. So being unshakable, the very Soul is thoroughly unbound (parinirvana)."
Buddha used the word "Anatta" an adj. instead of "natthatta’ti" (literally “there is not/no[nattha]+atta'[Soul]” to describe the Atta through negation: “Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real”[Br. Sutra III.2.22]
Buddha said to take REFUGE in the atta (soul). So Buddha said to take refuge in something that doesn't exist???????
KN Jatakapali 1441 Akkhakandam: "Atta' ca me so saranam gati ca"……"The True-Self is the refuge that I have gone unto"
"I leave you now Ananda, having made my Soul the refuge (Saran.am.attano)" DN2.120
Atta'sarana anan'n'asarana............"Soul as a refuge with none other as refuge" DN 2.100
"The Soul is Charioteer"[Jataka-2-1341]
“the body cannot pass that gate to fare beyond,..only the Soul (The Self)” -Udana
Buddha described a transcendent reality (Nirvana) that offers us EMANCIPATION from Samsara.
"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that EMANCIPATION from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, EMANCIPATION from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned. (Ud 8.3)
If the ultimate nature of the self is ONLY impermanence - Samsara (born, become, made, fabricated) with no transcendent entity then how is emancipation in the unborn, unmade, unbecome, unfabricated possible? And how would you describe a transcendent eternal entity/soul? As unborn, unmade, unbecome, and unfabricated. And for sake of argument, if you accept that there is an eternal soul that is unborn, unmade, unbecome, unfabricated how would you describe it in the world of conditioned existence? Exactly the way the Buddha did, with an adj. "Anatta" (non-soul) and point to everything that is born, become, made, fabricated as without soul because they are unfit and unworthy of being called the self/soul:
"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.
(SN 22.59)
Shrugs his shoulders and goes off to meditate
Too long. Didn't read. The Lady doth protest too much, methinks.
@LOTUS69 why are you so hellbent on making everyone see things your way? Be where you are. And let others do the same. This discussion is going no where at this point. Looking at your profile, this is the only discussion you made, and the only place you have commented (save for one discussion where you brought up the same point). It seems you came here solely to push your point on this and are completely disinterested in the community as a whole or any other discussion or topic. At this point, I'd call to question your intentions at coming here at all.
Yeah, I'm not reading that long-winded rant if you're not going to bother processing our information.
Not sure what you're hoping to achieve but I don't think it's working.