Soul theories and the Dhamma

[Rambutan]

The Buddha never denied that the experience of a continuous, essential self occurs. This is obvious in nearly every teaching.
However, the point isn’t that “no self exists” but rather that when looked for, there is no place where such a self (as experienced) can truly be found.
Is it in the atoms of the body? No.
Is it in the constantly changing patterns of the mind? No.
Is it in any object of awareness? No, it can’t be, because then what is awareness?
Is awareness the self?
How can awareness be a self? Any characteristic to describe that would still be an object of awareness.
The illusion of self occurs, which is what people grasp, which is what creates samsara.

[cappuccino]

The illusion of self … is what creates samsara.

craving is the reason for Saṃsāra

[josaphatbarlaam]

However, the point isn’t that “no self exists” but rather that when looked for, there is no place where such a self (as experienced) can truly be found.

And I think that was the debate of the time, i.e. whether the self was in the body (literal transmigration from body to body), or outside controlling the body via a "signal" (radio transmitter in another dimension signaling the body which somehow gets picked up by a new body after that body dies). And considering this question to even really matter they just confused themselves over a pointless question and became nihilists.

Is it in the atoms of the body? No.
Is it in the constantly changing patterns of the mind? No.
Is it in any object of awareness? No, it can’t be, because then what is awareness?
Is awareness the self?
How can awareness be a self? Any characteristic to describe that would still be an object of awareness.

The very notion of "awareness" as an abstract thing is the problem because awareness would merely be a property of a self. It could not be the whole self because technically its an action not a thing.

The illusion of self occurs, which is what people grasp, which is what creates samsara.

Yet nowhere is it ever stated that belief in a self creates samsara. And if it did, there would be a clearly discernable beginning, so so much for the sutta that says the beginning cannot be discerned once one accepts the theory that belief in a self creates samsara.

[Ontheway]

Buddhism rejected both Sassatavada and Ucchedavada. Therefore, soul theory is not relevant to Buddhism at all.

[cappuccino]

soul theory is not relevant to Buddhism at all.

neither affirmed nor denied


just many views… hence who is right?


(can't figure it out)

[Ontheway]

soul theory is not relevant to Buddhism at all.

neither affirmed nor denied


just many views… hence who is right?


(cannot figure it out)

You might need to go through Brahmajala Suttanta again. It will clear things up.

[cappuccino]

…

"Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.

"The position that 'the cosmos is not eternal'...

"...'the cosmos is finite'...

"...'the cosmos is infinite'...

"...'the soul & the body are the same'...

"...'the soul is one thing and the body another'...


Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta

[Ontheway]

You might need to go through Brahmajala Suttanta again. It will clear things up.

"Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.

"The position that 'the cosmos is not eternal'...

"...'the cosmos is finite'...

"...'the cosmos is infinite'...

"...'the soul & the body are the same'...

"...'the soul is one thing and the body another'...


Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta

This is why the soul theory is to be discarded and not relevant at all in the quest of Nibbana.

[cappuccino]

This is why the soul theory is to be discarded and not relevant at all in the quest of Nibbana.

yes (but not denied)

[Ontheway]

This is why the soul theory is to be discarded and not relevant at all in the quest of Nibbana.

yes (but not denied)

But not denied? So, you think Soul theories are true, just Buddhism don't want to accept?

Well, the Buddha did firmly refuted the soul theory, which is a type of Sassatavada.

[cappuccino]

But not denied? So, you think Soul theories are true, just Buddhism don't want to accept?

Well, the Buddha did firmly refuted the soul theory, which is a type of Sassatavada.

where does he deny? you are mistaken

[Ontheway]

But not denied? So, you think Soul theories are true, just Buddhism don't want to accept?

Well, the Buddha did firmly refuted the soul theory, which is a type of Sassatavada.

where does he deny? you are mistaken

Soul, Self, or Essence is rejected by Buddhism. That's like Theravada 101

Okay, in that case, you might need to refer to:

1) Suttanta Pitaka:
- Brahmajala Suttanta
- Anattalakkhana Sutta
- Cula Saccaka Sutta
- Cula Rahulovada Sutta

2) Abhidhamma Pitaka:
- Vibhanga

3) Visuddhi Magga
- Panna-bhumi-niddesa

[cappuccino]

Soul, Self, or Essence is rejected by Buddhism

soul is not the same concept (or word) as the self

[cappuccino]

soul
noun
the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

[Ontheway]

Soul, Self, or Essence is rejected by Buddhism

soul is not the same concept (or word) as the self

If soul term you are using here defined as the spiritual (religious) aspect of man, that is not a problem.

But if the soul term here defined as a "the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.", that is rejected by Theravada.