Soul theories and the Dhamma

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by ToVincent »

auto wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:59 pm There's insight before one can practice the path to nothingness,
I guess that insight might be gotten when the craving ceases(in previous attainment).
Yes, that's right.
Nothingness was there to begin with; but one has to have the insight of no contact, no "personal" feeling, no craving, and no appropriation, to get back to this nothingness.
And craving is indeed what the suttas seem to consider as paramount to get rid of altogether.
Nothing left to crave for.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
auto
Posts: 4584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by auto »

ToVincent wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:52 pm
auto wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:59 pm There's insight before one can practice the path to nothingness,
I guess that insight might be gotten when the craving ceases(in previous attainment).
Yes, that's right.
Nothingness was there to begin with; but one has to have the insight of no contact, no "personal" feeling, no craving, and no appropriation, to get back to this nothingness.
And craving is indeed what the suttas seem to consider as paramount to get rid of altogether.
Nothing left to crave for.
.
.
And nothingness entails new problems.
It seem the eternal well-being is not the truth or reality of the Realized Ones.
https://suttacentral.net/snp5.7/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote:“One who has comes to an end—do they not exist?
“Atthaṅgato so uda vā so natthi,
Or are they eternally well?
Udāhu ve sassatiyā arogo;
Please, sage, answer me clearly,
Taṁ me munī sādhu viyākarohi,
for truly you understand this matter.”
Tathā hi te vidito esa dhammo”.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by cappuccino »

auto wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 3:58 pm It seem the eternal well-being is not the truth or reality of the Realized Ones.
What goal are you seeking?


Except for a good state
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by ToVincent »

auto wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 3:58 pm And nothingness entails new problems.
Yes, that is the gist of it.
Hegel has quite summarized it.
https://justpaste.it/9p7sq

The determinate negation of the unrealized notional nothingness at inception (downward) , is the (upward) realization that there must be nothing more to crave for.
As long as nothingness does not have that content, there is indeed new problems (empty abysses over and over).

In other words, there seems to be two origins for nothingness.
The first one is avijja.
The second one is the end of craving (the true content of nothingness = nothing more to crave for).
The former is somewhat fundamental.
The latter is emergent.

And once the seventh attainment (aka jhana,) has been reached through the latter one, there are just two more steps to cross, to arrive at the truth (vijja), in which says Buddha in Snp5. 7 (Uppasiva), a "Muni can no longer be connected with", (by people still inside paṭiccasamuppāda/vijja. For "there is no measure of any kind, of the one who is extinguished - there is nothing by which they can speak of him.
when everything has been completely removed, all the ways for speech are also completely removed.”

Indeed, as you put it, "the eternal well-being is not the truth of the Realized Ones".
The truth has no words to be expressed with.

Very nice chat auto.
Thanks.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by ToVincent »

Erratum

Please read: a "Muni can no longer be connected with", (by people still inside paṭiccasamuppāda/avijjā).
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
auto
Posts: 4584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by auto »

ToVincent wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 7:04 pm Very nice chat auto.
Thanks.
.
.
likewise
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by Ontheway »

Ontheway wrote: Fri Feb 18, 2022 3:52 am Whoever still believe that there is a "Self" or "Soul" did not abandon "Sakkaya-Ditthi" yet.

A so-called being is made up of five aggregates affected by Clinging as taught by the Buddha in many Suttas.

(1) Rupa
(2) Vedanā
(3) Sañña
(4) Saṅkhāra
(5) Viññāṇa

All these five aggregates, the Buddha said:
Rupa...... Vedanā...... Sañña......Saṅkhāra......

Viññāṇa is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’ But because consciousness is nonself, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’
Seeing this, these aggregates are nonself and we couldn't even put a notion of "Self" anywhere in these five aggregates.

If we forcefully do so, saying the aggregates are "Self", part of "Self", product of "Self", subset of "Self", then this is not only contradictory to Pāli scriptures but also to our common sense.

I saw people here attributed "Self" to either "stream of consciousness" or "Patisandhi citta" or "Gandhabba", this is absurd.

- First, none of the Pāli Tipitaka scriptures said so.

- Second, none of the commentaries aka Atthakathas said so.

- Third, the nature of consciousness is arising and ceasing continuosly, after one consciousness ceases there comes another consciousness into the picture. There is no permanency in such phenomena as it is operating under Conditional Relations as described in Paṭṭhāna.

Next, to say "There is no self" is wrong as indicated by many people's posts here is illogical too. As Bhikkhu Bodhi said:
it is not proper to support one’ s argument by identifying the position of the modern interpreters with the annihilationist doctrine found in the Nikáyas and then point to the Buddha’ s rejection of the annihilationist view as ipso facto implying rejection of the other.
- Investigating the Dhamma

These people don't even understand the difference of two tenets.

The Buddha said "Pancakhandha" is not to be regarded as "Self", as taught clearly in Suttas such as Anattalakkhana Sutta and Cūḷasaccakasutta. Now since five aggregates are not "Self", the notion of "Self" isn't found in these five aggregates, this is to say: "There is no Self."

This is entirely different from what Annihilationists believed "There is no Self". These people believe that there is a Self originally, but it is waiting to be annihilated after death.

And it was clearly mentioned in this scripture:
17. Who are other three teachers?

Here a certain teacher sets out soul as something real and permanent in the present life as well as in the future life.

Again, another teacher sets out soul as something real and permanent as far as this world is concerned but does not say so with regard to any future existence.

Lastly, a certain teacher does not set out soul as a real and permanent entity, either in regard to the present or to the future life.

Here the teacher of the first order is to be understood as a teacher who upholds the doctrine of Eternalism.

Again, the teacher of the second order is to be understood as a teacher who upholds the doctrine of Annihilationism.

Lastly, the teacher of the third order is to be understood as the teacher who is Sammāsambuddho (perfectly enlightened).

These are the other three teachers.
- Puggalapaññatti (Niddesa - 3. Tikapuggalapaññatti)

This is the difference.

And people said the The Buddha refused to answer to both "There is a Self" and "There is no Self" to Vacchagotta (and please remember that Lord Buddha is not an "eel-wriggling" teacher), therefore "There is no Self" is wrong. But they don't see the whole picture of this scenario.

Here is the crucial point of why Lord Buddha didn't answer Vacchagotta's question.
"When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not exist absolutely, if I had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’, Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused, thinking: 'It seems that the self that I once had no longer exists.’"

- Ananda Sutta (SN44.10)

Here the Buddha rejected the Annihilationism as indicated in the texts of Puggalapaññatti. What Lord Buddha wanted to teach is the "Anattā" idea, the lacking of the notion of "Self" for Five Aggregates.

No wonder Bhikkhu Bodhi said this:
The purport of the two is altogether different, and to identify them while aware of the difference seems to be a disingenuous move.
- Investigating the Dhamma

"Anattā" is not endorsing or negating of "Attā". Because either "to endorse" or "to negate", it will directly or indirectly approve the view of having an "Attā". "Anattā" supposed to be revealing the nature of five aggregates, to shows the reality of these five aggregates is indeed without a permanent entity or concept called "Attā".
This is the intended meaning of the teaching. Ven. Nyanaponika verified:

1. Body, or material form;
2. Feeling;
3. Perception;
4. Mental formations (i.e. emotions and volitions, thought processes and all other processes that do not come under any of the other groups);
5. Consciousness.

These five groups are not independent, clearly distinct things, but rather the names for different manifestations of the physical and mental process of existence that is commonly described as “I” or “personality.” Now if we look at our “I,” supposedly constant and endowed with its own identity, in the light of these five categories, what we see in each of the groups is uninterrupted change, ceaseless arising and passing away, continual being born and dying. All pro-cesses included in these five groups are, without exception, impermanent. Now whatever is impermanent is bound up with suffering. That is to say, it is either experienced directly as suffering (as in the case of physical or mental pain) or else it is exposed and subject to suffering because of the inherent impermanence of every happiness and every joy.

But of anything that is impermanent and subject to suffering, you cannot say: “This am I, this belongs to me, this is my self.” And since existence is entirely comprised in those five aggregates, and one cannot find anywhere in this sphere of mental and physical processes anything that can be described as “I,” or as a personality, it follows that all existence is “non-self,” that is to say, impersonal. No permanent essential core, no “soul,” either temporal or eternal, can be found there. Even the loftiest state of mind is no exception; even that is conditioned by the physical and mental processes comprised in the five aggregates, and is therefore impermanent. “I” and “personality” are merely conventional designations for a temporary combination of the five groups, for the constantly changing physical and mental processes of existence.

All existence is therefore:
impermanent (anicca), subject to suffering (dukkha), and non-self (anatta).

These are the three characteristics or distinguishing marks of everything that exists. The third characteristic, in particular—the non-existence of a personality or permanent identity—is the crux of the whole teaching of the Buddha.

This distinguishes it from all other religions or philosophical systems, which all uphold, in one way or another, some kind of belief in an “I” entity, in an individual soul or in a world soul. The insight into the truth of anatta is the great, unique cognitive achievement of the Buddha. It is only if one understands this teaching of “non-self” that one can understand the teaching of the Buddha—the Dhamma. The noble truth of suffering, too, can only be grasped in its full import and significance through a proper understanding of “non-self.”
The Vision of Dhamma, page 6 - 7
IMG_20220507_132330.jpg
IMG_20220507_132330.jpg (23.15 KiB) Viewed 672 times
:anjali: Venerable Nyanaponika Mahathera
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by ToVincent »

Ontheway wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:25 am Whoever still believe that there is a "Self" or "Soul" did not abandon "Sakkaya-Ditthi" yet.
There is quite a difference between sat and atta, my dear zealot friend.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by Ontheway »

The "Self" or "Soul", whatever you name it, not real and mere delusion.

It was stated clearly:
......the assumption of an eternal self supposed to exist beyond the five aggregates that make up personality and existence in its entirety. The supposition that the Buddha should have taught anything like that is clearly and sufficiently refuted by the following saying alone:

"Any ascetics or brahmans who conceive manifold (things or ideas) as the self, all conceive the five aggregates (as the self) or any one of them." - SN 22:47

This textual passage also excludes any misinterpretation of the standard formulation of the Anatta doctrine:

“This does not belong to me, this I am not, this is not my self.”

Some writers believe that this formula permits the conclusion that the Buddha supposed a self to exist outside, or beyond, the five aggregates to which the formula usually refers. This wrong deduction is disposed of by the statement of the Buddha quoted above which clearly says that all the manifold conceptions of a self can have reference only to the five aggregates—either collectively or selectively. How else could any idea of a self or a personality be formed, if not from the material of the five aggregates and from a misconception about them? On what else could notions about a self be based? This fact about the only possible way whereby ideas of a self can be formed was expressed by the Buddha himself in the continuation of the text quoted above:

There is, bhikkhus, an uninstructed worldling.… He regards corporeality as self, or the self as possessing corporeality, or the corporeality as being within the self, or the self within corporeality (similarly with the four mental aggregates). In this way he arrives at that very conception “I am.”
Further it was said: “If there are corporeality, feeling, perception, formations and consciousness, on account of them and dependent on them arises the belief in individuality … and speculations about a self” (SN 22:154, 155).
The Vision of Dhamma, page 278

It appears that the Buddha, the Arahants, Anagami, Sakadagami and Sotapanna are zealots too in this Sasana, unwavering in Triple Gems, practice well to attain Nibbāna. To that, I am a zealot Upasaka indeed.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by cappuccino »

Ontheway wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 11:39 am The "Self" or "Soul", whatever you name it, not real and mere delusion.
Self and soul are different


Why can’t you understand
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by ToVincent »

Ontheway wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 11:39 am The supposition that the Buddha should have taught anything like that is clearly and sufficiently refuted by the following saying alone:

"Any ascetics or brahmans who conceive manifold (things or ideas) as the self, all conceive the five aggregates (as the self) or any one of them." - SN 22:47
We should all use "id est" (that is), when refering in parenthesis, to an added personal reading — as in:
"Any ascetics or brahmans who conceive manifold ( id est: things or ideas) as the self, all conceive the five aggregates (as the self) or any one of them."
Most us us will understand the added point of view.

“Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā anekavihitaṁ attānaṁ samanupassamānā (paś*) samanupassanti, sabbete pañcupādānakkhandhe samanupassanti, etesaṁ vā aññataraṁ
SN 22:47
"Any ascetics or brahmans who consider "the being became visible" (however you translate "become visible" as a p.p.p,) as the self of several kinds, all regard the five aggregates or any one of them."
* paś/dṛś:
- look at, regard , consider. (the samanupassanti case).
- other meaning: become visible , appear. (the present passive participle samanupassamānā case).


All the modern translators have zapped the samanupassamānā part.
No wonder!

SN 22.47 / SA 63 / SA 45 : https://justpaste.it/vyhx
.
.
Last edited by ToVincent on Sat May 07, 2022 1:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by Coëmgenu »

Soul: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
From "Oxford Languages."
"As Catholics, we believe that when a person dies, the soul separates from the body."
From "the Walpole Catholic Collaborative."

In Jewish Esotericism, there are a series of angels responsible for nurturing the souls as they grow on the Tree of Life. Such-and-such angel teaches them this-and-that. This-or-that angel teaches them such-and-such.

In all definitions, aside from in some sects of the radical reformation where "soul" just means "life-force" (hence the dead do not have "souls"), "soul" is a concept referring to the immortal immaterial aspect of the human being.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by Coëmgenu »

ToVincent wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 1:49 pmSN 22.47 / SA 63 / SA 45 : https://justpaste.it/vyhx
.
.
Who stuck "greater-metropolitan-area" into that Chinese translation? You?

Edit: it looks like a certain N.J. Smith did...

佛住舍衛國
The Buddha dwelt in the land of Śrāvastī

祇樹給孤獨園
at Jetavana, at Anāthapiṇḍadārāma....

No "greater metropolitan area!" That's modern Chinese influencing a modern person's reading of classical Chinese!
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Sat May 07, 2022 1:57 pm, edited 3 times in total.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 1:50 pm
ToVincent wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 1:49 pmSN 22.47 / SA 63 / SA 45 : https://justpaste.it/vyhx
.
.
Who stuck "greater-metropolitan-area" into that Chinese translation? You?
?!?!?!
Analayo.
:rolleye:

Preposterously thwarting and scotching and q------- again.
.
.
Last edited by ToVincent on Sat May 07, 2022 1:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by Coëmgenu »

N.J. Smith translated wrong. Don't worry, it's not your fault.

佛住舍衛國祇樹給孤獨園

佛 the Buddha
住 dwelt (in)
舍衛 Śrāvastī
國 land
(at)
祇 Jeta's
樹 grove
(at)
給孤獨 Anāthapiṇḍada's
園 orchard

Reading 國 as "greater metropolitan area" is extremely eccentric. The rest of his translation is not significantly off.

This, 舍衛國, which literally means "Śrāvastī-land," would be more naturally rendered as "the land of Śrāvastī." Similarly, 給孤獨園, which literally reads "Anāthapiṇḍada-orchard," would be more naturally rendered as "the orchard of Anāthapiṇḍada" in English. Nonetheless, with these compounds explained, we can see how a direct equivalence can be drawn here between the Chinese and English.

There are no words in the Chinese corresponding to "greater" or "metropolitan." 國 can mean "area" however.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Sat May 07, 2022 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Post Reply