Self vs Soul

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Martin Po
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:41 am

Re: Self vs Soul

Post by Martin Po »

arijitmitter wrote:
Martin Po wrote:
As i understand:
- there is no soul, or, in other words : form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness are conditioned manifestations.
As far as I understand Buddha rejects Self. But Buddhism does not deny existence of a non bodily component that may continue after death [ which for sake of convenience we shall call soul ].

Buddha carefully chose words that avoided atman - samvattanika-viññana [ evolving consciousness ] and viññana-sotam [ stream of consciousness ].

So to summarize " no Self " means non attachment to " I " and " mine " and soul is carefully referred to as evolving consciousness. He was asking us to let go of ego but there was no equal term for ego back then and being silent and thus allowing for existence of soul.

:namaste: Arijit
I can suggest you to read DN1, in this sutta Buddha explain or/and reject all possibles views. :namaste:
DN 1 PTS: D i 1
Brahmajāla Sutta: The All-embracing Net of Views


76. "They proclaim: 'The self is immutable after death, percipient, and:

A.
1. material
2. immaterial
3. both material and immaterial
4. neither material nor immaterial
B.
1. finite
2. infinite
3. both finite and infinite
4. neither finite nor infinite
C.
1. of uniform perception
2. of diversified perception
3. of limited perception
4. of boundless perception
D.
1. exclusively happy
2. exclusively miserable
3. both happy and miserable
4. neither happy nor miserable.'
arijitmitter
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Self vs Soul

Post by arijitmitter »

reflection wrote:
What I mean is the ray has no essence to it. If you take the photons apart, the ray is not there.
You cannot take a photon apart. It is both a wave and a particle at same time. Which is what makes it so interesting. But discussing that will be digressing from the topic and the Forum.

:namaste: Arijit
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Self vs Soul

Post by reflection »

arijitmitter wrote:
reflection wrote:
What I mean is the ray has no essence to it. If you take the photons apart, the ray is not there.
You cannot take a photon apart. It is both a wave and a particle at same time. Which is what makes it so interesting. But discussing that will be digressing from the topic and the Forum.

:namaste: Arijit
Apart from each other, as in separate them.
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Self vs Soul

Post by acinteyyo »

arijitmitter wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:
No one knows the precise workings behind the kamma-process
If there is no precise doctrinal answer then my answer is as possible / plausible as any other answer.
acinteyyo wrote:
"If there is no soul then what is reborn?" is a wrongly formulated question which only leads to confusion.
Furthermore kamma is not reborn. Kamma simply is volitional action.
if there is no precise doctrinal answer then how is it determined a question is wrong ? if there is no right there can be no wrong.

:namaste: Arijit
What is unthinkable is the precise working out what kind of fruit a particular action bears. One cannot say that one particular action always leads to one and the same particular result. This is what cannot be thought.
The teachings do make clear that there is no attā to be found. To ask: "If there is no soul then what is reborn?" tells two things. The first is, that this question assumes that logically the soul is what is reborn. The second thing is, that this question still asks for a thing to be reborn. But there is no permanent thing which is reborn, so the question is useless and only leads to confusion.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
Martin Po
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:41 am

Re: Self vs Soul

Post by Martin Po »

arijitmitter wrote: :namaste: Arijit
In some sutta Buddha said that it is impossible that one practitioner can be free from suffering if he keeping self-view.
Can i ask you, why do you need some self? And can you give some logical or doctrinal argument on this statement?
:thinking:
MN 22 PTS: M i 130
Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile

...
Abandoning Possessions & Views
...
"Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity' — Isn't it utterly & completely a fool's teaching?"

"What else could it be, lord? It's utterly & completely a fool's teaching."
arijitmitter
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Self vs Soul

Post by arijitmitter »

reflection wrote:
Apart from each other, as in separate them.
If one photon traveled from A to B it will not be a sustained ray of light [ like from a torch ] but it will be a ray of light nevertheless [ like a flash gun ].
acinteyyo wrote:
No one knows the precise workings behind the kamma-process and it's one of the 4 incomprehensible things.
correct and it leaves me a lot of wriggle room for my following comment
arijitmitter wrote:
It may be like he was silent on existence of God he was purposefully silent on this point also; leaving the follower to choose A or B because something at end of the path or along the path will reveal to the follower which is correct. But I am quite sure he asked us to abandon ego when he spoke of anattā [ this car is mine, my television is bigger than your television ] but explicitly did not ask us to abandon soul.
Thank you all for a lively Sunday discussion. I depart now,

:namaste: Arijit
Last edited by arijitmitter on Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
arijitmitter
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Self vs Soul

Post by arijitmitter »

Martin Po wrote:
Can i ask you, why do you need some self
I do not need self. The discussion arose since my sister asked me difference between Self and Soul [ see OP ]

:namaste: Arijit
Martin Po
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:41 am

Re: Self vs Soul

Post by Martin Po »

arijitmitter wrote:
Martin Po wrote:
Can i ask you, why do you need some self
I do not need self. The discussion arose since my sister asked me difference between Self and Soul [ see OP ]

:namaste: Arijit
Oh, i'am sorry, i forget.

Buddha teaching can not answer on this question because there is no any view on this statement in buddhism. There is rejection of all possibles and impossibles view about self.

If your sister want any answer from the buddhist point of view, you shoul reply thus: "Form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, consciosness are impermanent and conditioned feomenas, attachment to what is impermanent brings dukkha, what is dukkha have no self, what is conditioned and impermanent have no self." There is no other answer IMO.
Last edited by Martin Po on Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Self vs Soul

Post by reflection »

arijitmitter wrote:
reflection wrote:
Apart from each other, as in separate them.
If one photon traveled from A to B it will not be a sustained ray of light [ like from a torch ] but it will be a ray of light nevertheless [ like a flash gun ].
A single photon is not a ray because a single photon does not behave in the same way as a ray. It does not have to travel in a straight line, for example. It takes many photons to in average give the behavior of a ray. But you keep arguing the simile instead of the point and that's really going nowhere. So I ask you to forget about the ray for a minute and reread my post.

:namaste:
arijitmitter
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Self vs Soul

Post by arijitmitter »

reflection wrote:
But you keep arguing the simile instead of the point and that's really going nowhere. So I ask you to forget about the ray for a minute and reread my post.
Agreed. I abandon that analogy of light.

Finally I reach this conclusion [ maybe after 20 years of study and meditation I will change ]

Buddha was silent about God [ which according to prevailing belief was Brahman ]. Hence he was also silent about atman [ which according to prevailing beliefs was part of Brahman ]. Like he said having belief in God or not believing in God does not in any way affect a human being and is irrelevant; I believe he similarly held believing in soul or not believing in soul also does not matter. A Buddhist may believe in a soul or might not. But believe in Kamma he must.

When he said anatta he actually meant to give up ego [ I am taller than you, I am richer than you train of thought ] since only by being ego-less can one proceed on the path of Dhamma. Whether you believe in soul or not does not add or subtract from your goal. So an individual Buddhist may believe in soul; there are no doctrinal challenges to it.

:namaste: Arijit
Last edited by arijitmitter on Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Self vs Soul

Post by reflection »

What you refer to as ego is what the Buddha called conceit, not anatta.

But I think your view is not necessarily an unproductive way to look at things from a practical perspective, so if it helps you, good.
arijitmitter
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Self vs Soul

Post by arijitmitter »

reflection wrote:
What you refer to as ego is what the Buddha called conceit, not anatta.
I should have expanded the list - I am thirsty, I am hungry, I am ugly, I am poor and so on. I am bunching anything with " I " or " Mine " under ego [ not perhaps a perfect Freudian definition of ego ]

Oxford Dictionary defines ego as " part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity ". Buddha asked us to get rid of this.

Also type in " what is ego " in Google and it automatically shows synonym as Self

:namaste: Arijit
Martin Po
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:41 am

Re: Self vs Soul

Post by Martin Po »

arijitmitter wrote: Whether you believe in soul or not does not add or subtract from your goal.
Yes, it substract from the one's goal, if the one's goal is Nibbana.
arijitmitter wrote:So an individual Buddhist may believe in soul; there are no doctrinal challenges to it.
Yes, there is.
There is no soul in/out of form, feeling, perception, mental formation, consciousness.

With ignorance as condition there is craving, with craving as condition there is consciousness, with consciousness as condition there is mentality-materiality, with mentality-maeriality as condition there is consciousness etc.

Ignorance is about not seeng or understanding 4 Noble Truth, and not seeng/understanding impermanence, suffering, and not-self of fenomena. These three are actualy the same through different point of examination.

Sabbe sankhara anicca
Sabbe sankhara dukkha
Sabbe dhamma anatta
arijitmitter
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Self vs Soul

Post by arijitmitter »

Hi Martin,

I quote a Theravada Buddhist from the internet -
Upasakha Jason wrote:
But did the Buddha teach not-self? Or did he teach no-self? The Canon, as far as I've studied it, does not mention the Buddha ever once saying that there is no Atman, or Atta. What he DID say, over and over again, was that those five aggregates of clinging are anatta, or not-self. The Buddha very carefully avoided making a definitive claim of there not being an Atman. A person can identify rather easily with that, and it becomes an object of clinging--a view of self, which is one of the lower fetters. However, it's very difficult to form a sense of self around the negation of this sense of self with the aggregates.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 806AAd1SxZ

He has put into a nutshell what I was trying to convey

:namaste: Arijit
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Self vs Soul

Post by reflection »

, "Monks, whatever contemplatives or brahmans who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
So those proposing a self do so in terms of the aggregates, whether they are aware of it or not. Even somebody saying there is a self outside of the aggregates, according to the Buddha, defines it within the aggregates. So it takes no big mind to at least intellectually conclude this means the Buddha left no place for a self, and that anatta means no self in everything, that the aggregates cover everything. Which I've already pointed at before when quoting the sutta that says all consciousness is considered part of the aggregate.

:anjali:
Post Reply