Soul in Buddhism

[Chang dao ling]

Hi, what did buddha teach about soul? I know buddha teach no self . Here I believe self means soul. So buddha taught there is no soul? If there is no soul who is taking reincarnation? Who is suffering?

[Taoist Texts]

57 minutes ago, Chang dao ling said:

buddha teach no self . ... buddha taught there is no soul

buddha who?

[old3bob]

7 hours ago, Chang dao ling said:

Hi, what did buddha teach about soul? I know buddha teach no self . Here I believe self means soul. So buddha taught there is no soul? If there is no soul who is taking reincarnation? Who is suffering?

 

My take: self (with a small s) means  compounded personality and ego which does not last long,  while the Soul (or Self large S) of all souls is the pure and uncompounded thus not a woven thing,  Btw,  there are soul beings which are not the same as just personality and ego and  are woven of pure prana. (which can be verified)  For instance there are depictions in Buddhism and other ways of radiant soul bodies/beings, for instance Quan Yin (which last a very, very long time before they too return) as sitting on beautiful lotus forms in the purer realms.  I believe that the quandary of all the hard core and assumed mental negation or affirmation on this subject is what the historic Buddha was teaching to stay unattached to.  

Edited July 30 by old3bob

[Chang dao ling]

9 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

buddha who?

Gautam Buddha 

[Taoist Texts]

42 minutes ago, Chang dao ling said:

Gautam Buddha 

nah, if he had no self and no soul, how come he has a name?

 

but joking aside, this

10 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

buddha teach no self . ... buddha taught there is no soul

is nonsense which the ignorant westerners parrot. there is no such teaching in buddhism. as usual the truth is the exact opposite of the western  nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anattā#No_denial_of_self

 

 

[forestofclarity]

12 hours ago, Chang dao ling said:

Hi, what did buddha teach about soul? I know buddha teach no self . Here I believe self means soul. So buddha taught there is no soul? If there is no soul who is taking reincarnation? Who is suffering?

 

Basically, in the suttas, the summation is that all phenomenon (dhamma) or skandhas are not self (anatta).

 

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.90/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

 

https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

 

There is a dispute in SE Asian Theravada with some who adhere to suttas, some who adhere to Abhidhamma, and the Thai forest tradition. 

 

One view: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

 

Some counter-arguments here: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/not-self-and-no-self-and-possibly-non-self-totally-different/4902

 

If one wants to go beyond a merely intellectual view, then inevitably one would have to spend time in practice. 

 

 

[Maddie]

13 hours ago, Chang dao ling said:

Hi, what did buddha teach about soul? I know buddha teach no self . Here I believe self means soul. So buddha taught there is no soul? If there is no soul who is taking reincarnation? Who is suffering?

 

That was one of those questions that he did not answer.

[forestofclarity]

1 hour ago, Maddie said:

 

That was one of those questions that he did not answer.

 

Yes, here is one sutta: 

 

https://suttacentral.net/sn44.10/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

Quote

 

“Sir, why didn’t you answer Vacchagotta’s question?”

 

“Ānanda, when Vacchagotta asked me whether the self survives, if I had answered that ‘the self survives’ I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not survive, if I had answered that ‘the self does not survive’ I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists.

 

When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self survives, if I had answered that ‘the self survives’ would that help give rise to the knowledge that all things are not-self?”

 

“No, sir.”

 

“When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not survive, if I had answered that ‘the self does not survive’, Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused, thinking: ‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer survives.’”

 

 

More questions not answered:

 

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.008.than.html

 

[old3bob]

before the Earth and human beings took form there were and are the heavenly and astral realms with their related gods and subtle beings (or "souls" which btw. the historic Buddha recognized in a well known and major sutra) thus who were around for a very time before 2500 or whatever years ago...for how long who knows  but some say the physical Earth is around 4 billion years old.

Edited July 31 by old3bob

[Chang dao ling]

10 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

Basically, in the suttas, the summation is that all phenomenon (dhamma) or skandhas are not self (anatta).

 

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.90/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

 

https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

 

There is a dispute in SE Asian Theravada with some who adhere to suttas, some who adhere to Abhidhamma, and the Thai forest tradition. 

 

One view: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

 

Some counter-arguments here: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/not-self-and-no-self-and-possibly-non-self-totally-different/4902

 

If one wants to go beyond a merely intellectual view, then inevitably one would have to spend time in practice. 

 

 

Dhammakya meditation tradition suprisingly believes in self

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammakaya_meditation

Edited July 31 by Chang dao ling

[Taoist Texts]

 

Quote

questions not answered:

thats another amusing western misunderstanding of buddhism. it comes from 2 main western flaws of the western mind 1) not thinking (in full sentences).  2) not understanding (that askers are different some are worthy of a direct answer and some are not).

A westerner does not think  in a full sentence: "hmm, questions not answered to whom"? Thats why he remains forever ignorant of the answers.

[johndoe2012]

4 hours ago, Chang dao ling said:

Dhammakya meditation tradition suprisingly believes in self

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammakaya_meditation

 

Please point out where it says that? 

[Chang dao ling]

1 hour ago, johndoe2012 said:

 

Please point out where it says that? 

Sorry I give the wrong link. Check this link 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luang_Pu_Sodh_Candasaro

[Maddie]

I think it's commonly mistakenly believed that the Buddha said there was no self. What he actually said was that the five aggregates were not self. When asked if there was a self or not a self the Buddha refused to answer this question.

[Chang dao ling]

58 minutes ago, Maddie said:

I think it's commonly mistakenly believed that the Buddha said there was no self. What he actually said was that the five aggregates were not self. When asked if there was a self or not a self the Buddha refused to answer this question.

Why did he refused to answer? Any guess?

[Maddie]

On 7/31/2024 at 10:19 AM, Chang dao ling said:

Why did he refused to answer? Any guess?

 

My guess which is based on his explanations in the sutas is he didn't want people to misunderstand his position and he didn't want them to speculate on things that are a distraction from cultivating for nirvana. Or like one of my friends always said, maybe he didn't know lol.

Edited August 1 by Maddie

[Giles]

Quote

2. Quest regarding the Cause of the World - meaningless.

I No question can be there be regarding the time, place and cause of the origin of this world, for these themselves form parts of the world.

II The question seeks to have an explanation of the whole in terms of its part. This can never be a logical question.

III The question as to who superimposes doership upon oneself is also not a proper question. The very act of superimposition presupposes a doer. Therefore this question also is illogical.

 

Menon, P. K. (2024). Atma Darshan & Atma Nirvriti. Methods Of Contemplation.

 

ISBN-13: 979-8218459178

ASIN: B0D9CWYWK7

 

 

Edited August 4 by Giles
Added Source.

[forestofclarity]

6 hours ago, Chang dao ling said:

Why did he refused to answer?

 

I think you just go back to the 4 Noble Truths. The cause of suffering is tanha, thirst, craving, etc. The cessation of suffering is to end this thirst. This thirst leads to clinging (upadana), or fuel for the whole cycle of suffering. Buddhism in a nutshell is radical non-clinging.

It is letting go, not finding something better to cling to. This is a key point many people apparently miss. 

 

If you grab something with you hand, forming a fist, and now you can't move freely, the solution is not to grab onto something brighter, cleaner or better. You need to let go of everything in order to move freely.

 

People often seem to think that if they let go, everything will fall apart--- as though the thirsting/grasping/clinging is somehow keeping the world together. 

 

[Chang dao ling]

12 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

My guess which is based on his explanations in the sutas is he didn't want people to misunderstand his position and he didn't want them to speculate on things that or a distraction from cultivating for nirvana. Or like one of my friends always said, maybe he didn't know lol.

I like your answer 

[tao.te.kat]

It all spins around what one will consider a soul (Atta or Atman).

 

For buddhism this Atman is impermanent and composed (not atomic) as anything is, for buddhism

 

You can call it Atman anyway if you wish but for claryfying the difference with hinduism they call it not-atman (anatta or anatman). That's really all.

 

It's just words as long as you understand the description that buddhism offers of your self. Call it as you wish.

 

About the substance of this buddhist anatman, in Tibet there're two schools, one more orthodox than the other.

 

The ortodhox Rangtong approach says that there's just the empty skandhas there, so there's really nothing there more than the parts that are itself composed and impermanent. We're not a thing, but a composed thing. There's no "core" anywhere that's more atman than the rest. The idea of self comes from confusing all these parts functioning with a more atomic self.

 

The unorthodox but tolerated Shentong approach says that there's something, a substrate, an essence of somekind, with is devoid of any characteristic of any skandha, but it's there and it's permanent. Shentong means "other emptiness" because of that. So this can be seen as some form of Atta, as long as one understand that is devoid of any characteristic and functioning. It's more like the energy that moves us (not being really that), Sometimes it's been used the example of a lion made of gold. So gold really exists as such in that case. While for Rangtong gold will be also composed and impermanent.

 

So sunyata, emptiness, is different for this two schools. For the first it's an absence. For the second it's some "thing" (not really a thing).

 

Sunyata is the idea that a chariot is made of parts, and there's not "chariot essence" anywhere in the chariot. Just parts that made up a chariot. Rangtong says that. But Shentong says, ok, you're right there's no "chariot essence" but there's a global essence/substance in all. 

 

That's the two kinds of sunyata in tibetan buddhism.

 

Same applies to you. For Rangtong there's no self-essence anywhere just parts.

 

For shentong there's no self-essence anywhere just parts, but all the parts share a "other emptiness" substance or dimension that is beyond words. It's a bit like pan-psiquism but not abot consciousness but even less (consciousness is composed in buddhism).

 

 

[forestofclarity]

3 hours ago, tao.te.kat said:

The unorthodox but tolerated Shentong approach says that there's something, a substrate, an essence of somekind, with is devoid of any characteristic of any skandha, but it's there and it's permanent.

 

This is a common but erroneous view, typically propagated by schools who don't like shentong. Shentong does not establish any such thing. Rather, what shentong is pointing to is that when you let go of everything, you're not stuck in an empty blankness. There is no contradiction IME. 

 

 

Edited August 1 by forestofemptiness

[Chang dao ling]

4 hours ago, tao.te.kat said:

It all spins around what one will consider a soul (Atta or Atman).

 

For buddhism this Atman is impermanent and composed (not atomic) as anything is, for buddhism

 

You can call it Atman anyway if you wish but for claryfying the difference with hinduism they call it not-atman (anatta or anatman). That's really all.

 

It's just words as long as you understand the description that buddhism offers of your self. Call it as you wish.

 

About the substance of this buddhist anatman, in Tibet there're two schools, one more orthodox than the other.

 

The ortodhox Rangtong approach says that there's just the empty skandhas there, so there's really nothing there more than the parts that are itself composed and impermanent. We're not a thing, but a composed thing. There's no "core" anywhere that's more atman than the rest. The idea of self comes from confusing all these parts functioning with a more atomic self.

 

The unorthodox but tolerated Shentong approach says that there's something, a substrate, an essence of somekind, with is devoid of any characteristic of any skandha, but it's there and it's permanent. Shentong means "other emptiness" because of that. So this can be seen as some form of Atta, as long as one understand that is devoid of any characteristic and functioning. It's more like the energy that moves us (not being really that), Sometimes it's been used the example of a lion made of gold. So gold really exists as such in that case. While for Rangtong gold will be also composed and impermanent.

 

So sunyata, emptiness, is different for this two schools. For the first it's an absence. For the second it's some "thing" (not really a thing).

 

Sunyata is the idea that a chariot is made of parts, and there's not "chariot essence" anywhere in the chariot. Just parts that made up a chariot. Rangtong says that. But Shentong says, ok, you're right there's no "chariot essence" but there's a global essence/substance in all. 

 

That's the two kinds of sunyata in tibetan buddhism.

 

Same applies to you. For Rangtong there's no self-essence anywhere just parts.

 

For shentong there's no self-essence anywhere just parts, but all the parts share a "other emptiness" substance or dimension that is beyond words. It's a bit like pan-psiquism but not abot consciousness but even less (consciousness is composed in buddhism).

 

 

So what happens when you achieved nirvana you just become emptiness?

[tao.te.kat]

Nirvana understood as Parinirvana (after death) is one inexpressible in buddhism, So we dont really have a description at all. Buddha rejects to explain.

 

But it doesnt change if you have atman or not. It's the same problen, isnt it? How will it be with atman? same doubt for me.

 

The difference is if you have a heaven of Gods to go to or not (parinirvana is not). But regardless of atman or anatman...

 

Nirvana in Samsara is mostly complete freedom from suffering so it's quite clear.

 

Nirvana in meditation (also called nirvana with residue) usually is understood as reaching the right samadhi (the name can vary from school to school), but this is the lesser one.

[tao.te.kat]

17 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

This is a common but erroneous view, typically propagated by schools who don't like shentong. Shentong does not establish any such thing. Rather, what shentong is pointing to is that when you let go of everything, you're not stuck in an empty blankness. There is no contradiction IME. 

 

 

 

Well you have tons of info to check it. For example:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangtong_and_shentong

 

Where is said many times and very clear that:

 

Classic Jonang shentong holds that while all relative phenomena are empty of inherent existence (svabhava), ultimate reality (paramartha-satya) is not empty of its own inherent existence.^[3] In this view, ultimate reality, the buddha-wisdom (buddha-jñana) or buddha-nature (buddhadhātu), is only empty of relative and defiled phenomena, but it is not empty of its countless awakened qualities.

 

That's the focal point. In fact shentong was even forbidden in Tibet for some time... And Jonang school (Shentong) is not recognized as an official tibetan school not even today.

 

Shentong was suppressed by the dominant Gelug school for several hundred years, equally for political reasons as doctrinal reasons. In 1658, the Gelug authorities banned the Jonang school and its texts for political reasons, forcibly converting its monks and monasteries to the Gelug school, as well as banning shentong philosophy and books, thus making the rangtong position the overwhelmingly majority one in Tibetan Buddhism.

 

https://dzokden.org/projects-en/equal-rights-for-the-jonang-tradition/

 

Not really that important in the end... but it posit an essence and self-existence for sunyata.

Edited August 2 by tao.te.kat

[johndoe2012]

On 31.7.2024 at 11:42 AM, Chang dao ling said:

Sorry I give the wrong link. Check this link 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luang_Pu_Sodh_Candasaro

 

Similar to Daoist meditation, focus on abdomen until a light appears, supernatural abilities etc. 

 

Someone more knowledgeable than me would suggest his realization was lower than that of Gautama Buddha.