Soul theories and the Dhamma

[cappuccino]

that is rejected by Theravada.

Buddhists reject it


Buddha was more careful and never did

[cappuccino]

"But, Master Gotama, the monk whose mind is thus released: Where does he reappear?"

"'Reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."

"In that case, Master Gotama, he does not reappear."

"'Does not reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."

"...both does & does not reappear."

"...doesn't apply."

"...neither does nor does not reappear."

"...doesn't apply."


Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta

[Ontheway]

You just copy paste sutta here and there without knowing context.

[SteRo]

"But, Master Gotama, the monk whose mind is thus released: Where does he reappear?"

"'Reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."

"In that case, Master Gotama, he does not reappear."

"'Does not reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."

"...both does & does not reappear."

"...doesn't apply."

"...neither does nor does not reappear."

"...doesn't apply."


Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta

Since he disintegrates upon death it cannot be said that he reappears [as same materiality]. But since he disintegrates upon death it cannot be said that he does not reappear [in a different material form] either. Materiality does not evaporate upon death, it just changes form.

[Ontheway]

Rupa is not Self, Vedana is not Self, Saññā is not Self, Saṅkhāra is not Self, Viññāṇa is not Self. Within and without these five aggregates, none of them can be regarded as Self and the notion of "Self" don't apply on any of them. Hence, there is no Self.

[Rambutan]

If there were a permanent self, it would never change.
But our entire existence, both mental and material, is constantly changing, like images in a TV.
Even if there were some kind of permanent soul thing, experiencing this change, it would be irrelevant. It would be like a person watching the images change on a TV, having no effect on those events, without any direct connection to those events.
Being some kind of permanent entity, observing the changing aggregates of this body and mind would be no different than watching a squirrel run up and down a tree. You are observing this body’s actions, and the squirrel’s actions, etc, so why are you not the squirrel’s soul as well?

[cappuccino]

Even if there were some kind of permanent soul thing

Buddha never said

[Rambutan]

Even if there were some kind of permanent soul thing

Buddha never said

…never said what?

[cappuccino]

Buddha never said

…never said what?

There is or is not a soul

[Rambutan]

Buddha never said

…never said what?

There is or is not a soul

What is your definition of “soul” then?

[cappuccino]

What is your definition of “soul” then?

a wilderness of views

a fetter of views

[Rambutan]

What is your definition of “soul” then?

a wilderness of views

a fetter of views

Wow. That Wikipedia link mentions the definition of “soul” by just about every religion in the world.
Except Buddhism.
So, you only have a non-buddhist definition?
That would explain a lot.
I guess when you claim that the Buddha never commented on the definition of soul (by those mentioned in Wikipedia), you’re right.

[cappuccino]

What is your definition of “soul” then?

a wilderness of views

a fetter of views

Wow. That Wikipedia link mentions the definition of “soul” by just about every religion in the world.
Except Buddhism.

Buddha said… a wilderness of views, a fetter of views

[Ontheway]

What is your definition of “soul” then?

a wilderness of views

a fetter of views

Wow. That Wikipedia link mentions the definition of “soul” by just about every religion in the world.
Except Buddhism.
So, you only have a non-buddhist definition?
That would explain a lot.
I guess when you claim that the Buddha never commented on the definition of soul (by those mentioned in Wikipedia), you’re right.

I think people from east and west both got a hard time letting go the notion of "Soul".

[cappuccino]

I think people from east and west both got a hard time letting go the notion of "Soul".

Of course the Buddhist position is most difficult