Eighth Consciousness = Soul, in Mahayana?

Dakini

This interesting post turned up one one of the threads:

"The Eighth Consciousness is a term what some people call soul. Although Buddhism always says that there is no soul, what it means is that there is no absolute soul. So what Buddhism refers to as the Eighth Consciousness is what many non-Buddhists would say is their soul. In particular, this Eighth Consciousness survives the death of the body, and along with its life energy departs for some other place. When it sees the new father and mother, it mixes with their sperm and ovum and becomes a new person." -- deepak

Apparently Theravadan only recognized Six Consciousnesses, so I assume this is a question for the Mahayana crowd.

Do you agree that what Buddhism means when it says there's no soul is that there's no "absolute" soul? What about the idea of "mind" or "consiousness" being what carries over to the next life, is that the same thing as what's being discussed here? Is it just a matter of semantics? Does anyone know where the above-quoted teaching/information comes from?

compassionate_warrior

Does anyone know where the above-quoted teaching/information comes from?

We may have to wait for deepak to show up, to get the answer to that question. I'm intrigued by this quote as well.

Whoknows

If you take a snap shot of fire, it will consist of energetic particles moving upwards due to the energy of combustion. If you take a snapshot of the fire a few moments later every particle is different, the original particles have moved upwards out of the fire as smoke. If you take another snapshot later again the particles will all be different yet again. But we still say that it is the same fire that is burning in all three cases. The fire itself has not moved, only its constituents. This how I sometimes think of the passage of the individual through life and death, though I do wonder about the make up of the particles involved but have no answers there.

I suppose that when the soul is rejected in Buddhism it is rejected as a permanent metaphysical object. Such a permanent object is said to have no capability to interact with the phenomenal world due to its permanence. ie for two objects to interact both objects must undergo change with their mutual interaction. So in that respect the soul (from a Buddhist POV) is pretty much useless on the search for liberation as it is unable to interact with the consciousness of the individual. Renaming the alayavijnana as a soul though seems to me as an extreme view and not a middle path, the alayavijnana does not have any absolute existence in its own right and Yogocarins do not claim that it is an permanent unchanging entity. In Mahamudra teachings, however, the alayavijnana is said to be transformed with Buddhist practise.

Cinorjer

Yogacara school. They use an extended list of skandhas, including dividing up form into separate senses. Used to justify the belief in literal reincarnation by postulating a "seed consciousness" on top of the other skandhas that seeks out a newly fertilized womb to inhabit.

Doesn't really address the central issue of the reincarnation debate, in that if you are not the skandhas, neither are you this hypothetical "Seed Consciousness" so what is being reborn?

formermonkJohn

when the buddha denied the soul, we don't know exactly what he meant by soul, when the buddha affirmed the soul, we don't know exactly what different concept of soul he was referring to. I think maybe when he said"there is a soul, there is not a soul, these are both wrong views"(i paraphrase) he simply meant this thing people call the soul that goes from life to life is invisible, makes no impression on the five senses, cannot be contained or looked at closely like something physical, so it is folly to make statements like this is how the soul is, this is what the soul looks like, this is where the soul goes and came from.

since it is invisible and outside our senses wouldn't it just be better to say its hard to understand, hard to describe, and can't be pigeonholed in a box, like the four noble truths, which are obvious, and given that when we die we go somewhere or nowhere no matter what we believe shouldn't we be concentrating on the here and now, and let the future come when it comes.

something like that, does that help anyone, its helping me right now

Whoknows

@John sounds good. Whisper words of wisdom let it be.

formermonkJohn

im not john lennon!! but thanks!!!!!!!!

compassionate_warrior

when the buddha denied the soul, we don't know exactly what he meant by soul, when the buddha affirmed the soul, we don't know exactly what different concept of soul he was referring to.
since it is invisible and outside our senses wouldn't it just be better to say its hard to understand, hard to describe, and can't be pigeonholed in a box, like the four noble truths,
something like that, does that help anyone, its helping me right now

In what text did the Buddha affirm the soul? This is the first I've heard of that. Are you saying, basically, that the soul is an imponderable? That makes a lot of sense. But according to the Buddha it did exist? What else did he say about it? Is soul different from "mind" or "consciousness"?

Dakini

fmJohn, whatever you're reading, I'd like to see it. You come up with some great stuff. The Buddha denied the soul, but he affirmed the soul? Can you provide references for that? Did he say anything about it in connection with rebirth? (You can PM me that last one, if you don't want to start another fight about rebirth--that's not what I intended this thread to be :rolleyes: .)

Yogacara school.

That's where the Eight Consciousnesses idea came from, Cino? But Theravadan has 6 Consciousnesses, someone said elsewhere. Where does that come from? So the Yogacarans added 2 more, in order to come up with something that would fit the bill for rebirth? OK, I can see that.

formermonkJohn

compassion and dakini, let me try again;

i don't think the buddha ever stated there is a soul, but reincarnation almost requires some kind of soul, therevada call it spirit, or the mind conciousness, the buddha affirmed rebirth and the spirit or mind conciousness, i wasn't quoting the buddha, i was paraphrasing, a better way of putting it would be, the buddha denied one kind of soul, but we don't know exactly what he meant by soul, other statements he made affirming rebirth and or reincarnation, clearly point towards there being some kind of soul or spirit, or just plain thing, that was and is and will be. but this is something quite different from the type of soul he was denying.

there are all kinds of interpretive ways of defining the soul in many and diverse ways, the buddha was obviously denying one or more of these definitions, when he said no soul, however there are other definitions of soul or spirit which fit right into what the buddha was teaching,

i think its all a question of semantics based on your defintition of soul, if your definition of soul is mind conciousness, then yes the buddha taught there was a soul, if your defintition of the soul is some as yet undefined hindu concept of a ghost in the machine, a literal ghost living within us that looks just like us but is not made of flesh, then i would guess no, the buddha denied that this concept of the soul was real.

Dakini

The theravada called it "spirit"? Do you have a reference for that? That's the first I've heard of that. And what about the suttra where the Buddha rebukes a monk for believing in a transmigrational "something": consciousness, spirit, whatever? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm trying to understand who taught what.

formermonkJohn

i was taught by monks at a local cambodian temple, therevada tradition, im no scriptural scholar. a monk, or bhikku now, made the statement to me recently, we believe that the soul (the concrete entity the buddha was denying, i think) dies with the body its the spirit that is reincarnated,(before and after death) and you can be a bodhisattva and come right back to earth as different (newborn) person. once again its a question of semantics(definitions of words) what does he mean by soul, and what does he mean by spirit, one man's soul may be another mans spirit(and vice versa), another man's mind conciousness. in my opinion, words are not real, they are only weak titles for what's real, or unreal for that matter.He definetly believed in reincarnation, he didn't call it rebirth, and that is what they teach at this conservative, i would say mainstream therevada temple, as they were all taught in cambodia.

Dakini

Fascinating. Thanks, John. But they never explained what the difference was between "soul" and "spirit"? Oh well....

formermonkJohn

no. sorry, dak, i'll ask next time, and this time i'll talk to the assistant abbot who speaks good english, obviously you've seen on this forum you can expound almost any view by quoting or misquoting, various basic and obscure scriptures, DD are you listening, we are not experts on scripture or enlightenment, i'd trust the word of the monks any day than some maybe poorly translated text that could come across as saying something entirely out of the context it was written in or spoken by the buddha,

any buddhist scripture is like the red words in the Bible, you can never be entirely certain the buddha or jesus ever said that, like we've said before this stuff wasn't written down for 700 or 800 yrs after the buddha, you'd have to be some enlightened master to even guess which is really the buddha speaking, or simply made up by monks later.

but the monks at the temple are aware of all of this and teach it openly, if they say something is real and from the buddha, you can pretty much guarantee that's the same teaching they have been giving for hundreds of hundreds of years.

ajahn chan and his thai forest tradition are i believe a newly formed offshoot of buddhism, sort of like mormons or jehovahs witnessess in christianity. When i try to listen to ajahn brahm? i just can't do it, its something like "i'm obviously not enlightened so i'm going to develop this phony smooth talking monotone voice so people think i'm different" i could be entirely wrong about him, but real thai and cambodian monks don't talk like that, they are calm, but not in a forced way, very authoratative sounding, but not at all pushy, hypnotic or mesmorizing.

i love the monks at my temple and they love me as i'm their only western convert, i once tried to start my own new religion of buddhist monks who lived a non celibate lifestyle, sort of just like the monks but one big step below as we could get married or have a girlfriend. not having the blessing of the temple, because they said your too much of a christian, that's not buddha, i was so consumed with my idea i made myself a monk, with no blessing from the temple, crazy isn't it?

i bought some orange silk material at a yard sale for the skirt, got some yellow monk tshirts from the temple, and wore orange shirts over the top to look different from monks, i kept showing up at the temple wearing my "robes" and they would tell me, your not a monk take those off, if you want to be a monk we'll perform the ceremony, no problem, but don't come to the temple dressed like that and so on, but they still let me come,

it lasted about a month were i was the "Buddhist monk in redlands" very popular with the young kids at skateboard shops. set up a temple in my house and was graciously given some ancient buddha statues at the temple to help set up my own temple, unfortunately it ended in a horrible nervous breakdown and a much needed trip to rehab as I had only been sober two or three months when this happened.

this was three years ago and i've stayed clean off drugs ever since, i still have manic phases like now were i won't stop typing, but i don't have nervous breakdowns and trips to the hospital, thanks to sobriety, if anyone tries to tell you marijuana is not bad for mentally ill people tell them the're crazy. good memories, all, being a fake monk for a month, i was a real monk for three weeks about 15 years ago.

deepak

hi,
The first five consciousnesses are the eye-consciousness and that of the ear,nose tongue and body which are also known as our senses

The sixth consciousness is equivalent to the scientific term "mind." In Theravada this is the main consciousness and contain the seventh and eighth.Thus Theravada does not admit any other consciousness.

The seventh consciousness, which holds the eighth consciousness as one's self is an object to be meditated away by sunyata samadhi

The eighth consciousness, emphasized in the Mahayana, contains all seeds, good or bad,from which the other seven types of consciousness are formed.

The ninth consciousness,emphasized in Tantra, contains all the virtues and potentialities of Buddhahood.When one is Fully Enlightened,this consciousness becomes the totality of wisdom WITHOUT ANY SENSE OF CONSCIOUSNESS.

Religions emphasize that there is a soul, a higher-self or spirit which is the master of a being who may descend into hell or ascend to heaven. It does not die and on it depends transmigration when it descends(in some religions) though it may unite with God when it ascends.

Buddhism admits this as only the eighth consciousness.Above the eighth consciousness,when it is sublimated through sublimation upon no-ego(sunyata), THERE IS NO SOUL AT ALL.

Thus when Buddhist say that there is no soul,it means that in Buddhahood, there is no soul but for common persons there are 'changable souls' which carry their lives wandering in transmigration.The 'soul' is the eighth consciousness, which should meditated away by sunyata samadhi to eventually become the wisdom of Buddhahood

So much for this soul soul thing.Thank you very much, I love you.

compassionate_warrior

Good post, deepak, but I wish you'd give us a reference to what text or teachings this comes from so we can further our studies. Thank you for joining us.

formermonkJohn

deepak chopra, you make perfect sense up till you go out on a limb and PROCLAIM THERE IS NO SOUL AT ALL, maybe you don't have a soul, but if i didn't have a soul or spirit I'd be dead, just flesh and bones, maybe a tree doesn't have a soul, maybe a rock doesn't, maybe a lousy loud blues player ain't got no soul, but the soul or the spirit or the mind conciousness, whatever you call it, its the only thing alive, with the spark of life, in the machines we call our bodies, no wonder scientists have never been able to bring a totally dead body back to life, without the spirit there's no hope of life,

im waging a war on no soulies here on new buddhist, deepak youre the first one to come into my sights, if you're not alive, have no soul, and are going nowhere when you die, why are you trying to tell us soulies were to go, when youre admittedly going nowhere. I DO HEREBY PROCLAIM THE BUDDHA WAS A SOULIE, 90% of buddhists will agree in some way or another, youre breathing your last breaths no soulies, and your decent into nothingness will be horrible at your lifes end if it weren't for the grace of the buddha who might just breath some soul into you at your last breath, and let you live again, if for no other reason than, HE LOVES YOU MAN

ps deepak, if you want to escape from my sights, youre just the first one that popped up simply state I don't believe there is any soul at all, at least not in my understanding of the 9th consciousness. i'm sick and tired of people telling me i can't a buddhist and believe in heaven, hell, nirvana, shambhala, reincarnation, and do i have to say it again the soul, or spirit that is life itself and consciousness..

don't waste your time here, if you don't believe in some kind of soul(or the possibility of some kind of soul) you don't have much time left, seriously; life is short.

compassionate_warrior

He said above the 8th Consciousness, there's no soul. i.e. when one becomes enlightened, the previously-existing soul ceases to exist. or one meditates it away. Calm down, fmJ. I like deepak's posts, they make me think.

formermonkJohn

i believe the buddha spoke just the opposite rather than melt away, at the highest enlightenment the buddha taught ( and i know this, or i was taught, no quotes) the soul or spirit multiplies, and can be in several or many places at once, that a buddha can exist in hundreds or thousands of bodies, preaching the same basic messages (dharma) in slightly different ways in myriad realms or existences, either here, in heavens or other earths and of course still seated firmly in nirvana, which may not be simply a state of mind but a literal place or realm were beings have no physical body, just spirit, without form or substance, that's what some scriptures teach and many many buddhists believe, i honestly don't remember were i learned this but i am pretty sure it might be mahayana only teaching, one of those differences.......between the schools

compassionate_warrior

That's wild, John! I don't know if we can ever get to the bottom of this. Especially without text references.

Cloud

@John, You can think of it that way if you want, but from my understanding the Buddha taught that there is no core essence. This is what he meant by the teachings on Not-Self/Anatta. Enlightenment is going from the wrong thoughts that there is such an essence, a self/soul/separate "I", to seeing there are only conditioned aggregates and that craving/attachment leads to suffering due to the ever-changing reality that pervades every aspect of human existence.

The mind sees its true nature and releases, lets go of striving and struggling against the flow and finds a peace that can not be disturbed; a peace that has no requirements to be maintained. How could anyone ever destroy a soul just by meditating, if one existed? Meditation opens our mind's eye, sets things right, that's all. Take it as you will, this is just my understanding. We all have our own interpretation.

Dakini

no. sorry, dak, i'll ask next time, and this time i'll talk to the assistant abbot who speaks good english, obviously you've seen on this forum you can expound almost any view by quoting or misquoting, various basic and obscure scriptures, DD are you listening, we are not experts on scripture or enlightenment,I'd trust the word of the monks any day over some poorly translated text, ...

ROFL!! haha! Thanks for my laugh for the day, John. OK, we won't make you quote scripture, you can relax.

Well, I don't think we answered any questions definitively, but it sure was a fun and interesting ride! Thanks, everyone, for trying. (Sure wish I knew where deepak is getting his info...)

Whoknows

The ninth consciousness,emphasized in Tantra, contains all the virtues and potentialities of Buddhahood.When one is Fully Enlightened,this consciousness becomes the totality of wisdom WITHOUT ANY SENSE OF CONSCIOUSNESS.

I have never heard reference to the "ninth consciousness" before. In Mahamudra teachings what you refer to is the Ground of Being, Ground Mahanudra, Buddha Nature, tathagatagarbha. In Dzogchen its called Rigpa. Vajrayana (Tantrayana) also uses Buddha Nature as the basis for enlightenment. Anther synonym is Primordial Awareness. In none of the teachings is it referred to as a soul, its not even a "thing" as that would make it an aggregate which would make it unable to lead to enlightenment. It is also equal to emptiness, but is not nothingness. It is said to be luminously clear and have a cognitive quality that is not of conceptual origin. This is stated to counteract the idea that emptiness could be assumed to be nothingness. Every sentient being, irrespective of religion or belief has this basis for existence and as such it is not "Buddha" nature in the respect that the nature is not "Buddhist". It is ignorance of this nature that prevents enlightenment and this ignorance is the fundamental cause of suffering.

Mind at Ease, p81 by Traleg Rinpoche talks about the eight levels of consciousness, and chapter 7 of the same book is about Buddha Nature.

None of the eight levels of consciousness have any inherent existence and are all subject to emptiness. The eighth consciousness is called the storehouse or basic consciousness, though there are problems with both these English designations. This is the neutral repository for karmic seeds and dispositions.

As a consciousness it has no knowledge other than being able to differentiate between self and others. I don't understand this bit, its in Traleg Rinpoche's book as noted.

There is some danger of eternalism with this teaching, and some schools limit teaching of this until the student reaches a certain degree of maturity, or teach that this teaching is a lesser teaching. With media and scholarship being what it is today, these restrictions are difficult to enforce so I think Buddhism will have to think up some more creative antidotes to the problem of eternalism. Personally, I think if the practitioner is able to keep an open mind on eternalism, then we can evolve over time to the correct view with the appropriate practise, but that's just another opinion .

Dakini

Who, I love Traleg Rinpoche's writing. I'll check out his book, thanks.

Vincenzi

fmJohn, whatever you're reading, I'd like to see it. You come up with some great stuff. The Buddha denied the soul, but he affirmed the soul? Can you provide references for that? Did he say anything about it in connection with rebirth? (You can PM me that last one, if you don't want to start another fight about rebirth--that's not what I intended this thread to be :rolleyes: .)

I think there's a sutra were both "there is a soul" and "there is no soul" are exposed as false views... but that's far from affirming the soul.

Cloud

They're both false because they're not based on knowing, they're based on ignorance and craving. Work with what's here, find out what causes suffering and walk the path to end it.

Jeffrey

The 8th consciousness is empty of self and no reference point. Thus change or no change..

Jeffrey

Rebirth is appearances. If you are diagnosed with X disease it is because that appearance. If doctor wisdom finds a cure then you can have a better rebirth. Wisdom is based on emptiness of self radiating with no high and low and all related.

Its probably something like that. Just a rough idea, the rebirth is more simple like 'please God help the people, because I love.' Not complicated. But its good to question I don't mean to slam any doors.

xabir

This interesting post turned up one one of the threads:

"The Eighth Consciousness is a term what some people call soul. Although Buddhism always says that there is no soul, what it means is that there is no absolute soul. So what Buddhism refers to as the Eighth Consciousness is what many non-Buddhists would say is their soul. In particular, this Eighth Consciousness survives the death of the body, and along with its life energy departs for some other place. When it sees the new father and mother, it mixes with their sperm and ovum and becomes a new person." -- deepak

Apparently Theravadan only recognized Six Consciousnesses, so I assume this is a question for the Mahayana crowd.

Do you agree that what Buddhism means when it says there's no soul is that there's no "absolute" soul? What about the idea of "mind" or "consiousness" being what carries over to the next life, is that the same thing as what's being discussed here? Is it just a matter of semantics? Does anyone know where the above-quoted teaching/information comes from?

no, even the eighth consciousness is understood to be insubstantial and empty of self in mahayana buddhism.

In buddhism it is not that we do not recognize continuity, but that there is only a continuity of a process, not the passing on of any sort of entity, self or soul. Because no such soul exists that is unchanging independent and having its own essence. Each re emergence of consciousness arises due to various karmic mental and physical conditions but is neither the same nor different from the previous moment of consciousness. Same goes for eighth consciousness. The eighth consciousness is not a self or a soul much less a fundamental overarching cosmic consciousness. It simply is a unque, personal, insubstantial, stream of consciousness empty of self.

Glossary (from http://www.kheper.net/topics/Buddhism/Yogacara_glossary.html):

*Alaya-vijnana, or "store consciousness" -- one of the central technical terms of Yogacara (Vijnanavada, Vijnaptimatra) philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism. Early Buddhists taught about existence of six-fold consciousness, that is the conciousness of five types of perception (visual, audial, etc.) and of "mind" (manovijnana). The Yogacarins analysing the source of consciousness added two more kinds of consciousness. They are: klistamanovijnana, or manas, that is the ego-centre of an empirical personality, and alaya-vijnana which is the source of other kinds of consciousness. Alaya-vijnana is above subject-object opposition but it is not a kind of absolute mind: alaya-vijnana is momentary and non-substantial. Every sentient being with the corresponding to this being "objective" world can be reduced to its "own" alaya-vijnana. Therefore, classical Yogacara states the existence of many alayas.

The Alaya-vijnana is a receptacle and container of the so-called "seeds" (bija), or elementary units of past experiences. These bijas project themselves as an illusionary world of empirical subjects and corresponding objects. All other seven types of consciousness are but transformations (parinama) of alaya-vijnana. In the course of its yogic practice a Yogacarin must empty alaya-vijnana of its contents. Thus the Yogacarin puts an end to the tendency of external projections of alaya-vijnana changing it into non-dual (advaya) wisdom (jnana) of Enlightened mind.

xabir

hi,
The first five consciousnesses are the eye-consciousness and that of the ear,nose tongue and body which are also known as our senses

The sixth consciousness is equivalent to the scientific term "mind." In Theravada this is the main consciousness and contain the seventh and eighth.Thus Theravada does not admit any other consciousness.

The seventh consciousness, which holds the eighth consciousness as one's self is an object to be meditated away by sunyata samadhi

The eighth consciousness, emphasized in the Mahayana, contains all seeds, good or bad,from which the other seven types of consciousness are formed.

The ninth consciousness,emphasized in Tantra, contains all the virtues and potentialities of Buddhahood.When one is Fully Enlightened,this consciousness becomes the totality of wisdom WITHOUT ANY SENSE OF CONSCIOUSNESS.

Religions emphasize that there is a soul, a higher-self or spirit which is the master of a being who may descend into hell or ascend to heaven. It does not die and on it depends transmigration when it descends(in some religions) though it may unite with God when it ascends.

Buddhism admits this as only the eighth consciousness.Above the eighth consciousness,when it is sublimated through sublimation upon no-ego(sunyata), THERE IS NO SOUL AT ALL.

Thus when Buddhist say that there is no soul,it means that in Buddhahood, there is no soul but for common persons there are 'changable souls' which carry their lives wandering in transmigration.The 'soul' is the eighth consciousness, which should meditated away by sunyata samadhi to eventually become the wisdom of Buddhahood

So much for this soul soul thing.Thank you very much, I love you.

no soul is not a state of experience

Rather it is talking about a dharma seal, there never was any self in any experience to begin with. There never was an agent, an 'I', a perceiver, a controller, a thinker, hearer, seer, etc, to begin with. All along in seeing there is just the seen without seer, in hearing there is just the heard without hearer... So on and so forth. This is not a state of experience but a fact of existence already so, waiting to be realized. Rebirth is not denied just that a soul/rebirth-er is denied, just as hearing is not denied only the hearer is denied.

See especially stage four ad five of http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

xabir

Now some people may ask if there is no perceiver then who perceives, or if there is no soul then who is reborn, this question was answered by buddha before. His response would be to reject the question as inappropriate as the question implies there is an agent or soul but there isnt. Instead he points out that the question should have been put this way: with what requisite conditions do these manifestation arise? With what conditions do hearing arise? (Ear, sound, etc) with what condition do birth arise? (Ignorance, karma, etc) there is no continuity of a soul, only the continuity of a process that dependently originates

Dakini

All good stuff, xabir. thank you for finding and reviving this thread, and for taking the time to write out your thoughts. This will give me something to chew on for awhile.

xabir

Np...

By the way with regards to deepak 'sunyata samadhi', sunyata is not a samadhi state, it is the nature of reality that is to be realized. To realize this is to enter into the first bhumi.

Cloud

The gate of emptiness.