Buddhism and the concept of "no" soul, "no" God

[Lyndon]

The only way to know for sure what happens when you die, is to die, the rest is just speculation.

 

[Vishvavajra]

The only way to know for sure what happens when you die, is to die, the rest is just speculation.

That's one way of approaching it. Another is to deconstruct the assumptions inherent in the question. When asked where people go when they die, Shakyamuni responded with a question: where does a fire go when it goes out? In that case the problem isn't the lack of knowledge of where it goes, but rather the assumptions at work in the first place—i.e. that there is something that should go somewhere.

The putative existence of that "something" is key, since the Buddha also denies that people cease to exist when they die, as that also assumes a "something" that is there in one moment but not there in another.

 

[Lyndon]

Your opinion or misinterpretation of the Buddha's sayings doesn't mean much to me.

 

[Twilight Hue]

How would a suitable teacher of the Dhamma help someone who has no interest in teachers of the Dhamma?

That would be a true ah! ha! moment to bring that about.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The only way to know for sure what happens when you die, is to die, the rest is just speculation.

That I definitly agree, but it seems once dead, everything resets to 0. Dead people I think, cannot think so as to even know for sure!

 

[Lyndon]

Then obviously you have already made up your mind what is going to happen when you die, and are not ready to wait......

 

[aoji]

As for karmic retribution, on the one hand it is a Buddhist teaching, but on the other hand it's not meant to be generalized beyond one's own experience. Based on what I've learned from our teacher, viewing the hardships of one's own life as the results of causes and conditions that were laid down in prior times is a useful practice. It's actually meant to lessen one's self-attachment, since it means that the limited view of self that most people carry around with them is not the agent of all the things that happen in their life. On the other hand, we were warned never to regard other people's hardships in terms of karmic retribution, as that way lies the erosion of compassion. In short, like all things related to Buddhadharma, this view of karma is a technique for practice, not a statement about the objective nature of the universe.

Absolutely 100% agree. I was stating what I have read, specifically in the case of Hinduism, where one may take a cavalier attitude to life, perhaps thinking that everything done in this life will get worked out in another life; or those in power saying to the less well off that it is because of karma that the rich man is now enjoying life more and that the poor person can blame his past karma for his troubles in this life.

[/quote]It's not true that minds are disappear into the ether and that new ones are born. [/quote]

I never said that new ones are born. A traditional Buddhist usually "believes" in Re-incarnation and Karma because without them why seek Liberation? I liken rebirth being like a string of pearls, where each pearl connotes a previous life, but the one constant is the string. It is that string which differentiates Vedanta from Buddhism, with Vedanta saying that the "soul" has always existed and will always exist (at least until such time as one becomes Enlightened and decides not to be re-born) and Buddhism saying that there is no-soul. But even Buddha, upon his Enlightenment said that looking back he saw at least 500 of his previous lives. The consciousness in each previous life is not the same in each sub-sequent life, but there may be Consciousness which one may call a soul. To the Hindusour present consciousness is a mirror image of Consciousness. It is the personality, the ego, the ID, that western culture thinks is either re-born or goes to Heaven, or which God "remembers" (Judaism). But the "theory" of Re-incarnation is found in many cultures, be they the Indus, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Egyptians, to name a few. Whether or not there was one source for the idea, I don't know, and I doubt anyone (well, anyone that isn't Enlightened) can say with any certainty.

I used the word "ether" to denote a nebulous sphere. For example, in Buddhism how many Hells and Heavens are there said to exist? At least 3 below and 3 above, although some say 4 below and 26 above. How does consciousness traverse to these spheres?

What you call "mind" is not a thing to be reified; it is a set of phenomena that are perpetually in flux from moment to moment, based on the causes and conditions of each previous moment. Apart from a purely subjective experience, individual identity has nothing to do with that.

That sounds awfully dogmatic... Is it something one accepts by faith or has one realised it through meditation?

While the mind is a flux, it is also many threads of thought operating at the same time. When I looked into "my" mind I could see that my first thought in the morning was the a continuation of the last thought-fragment before entering sleep (sleep caused thought to stop in mid-sentence and upon waking the thought was completed); but beyond that I could see that the mind continues to think even in deep sleep since it is now habitual and thus deeply ingrained with the tendency to think even as background noise. The question then becomes, "Is the one who is aware of one's own thinking the "Watcher," the "Witness," undifferentiated Consciousness or Awareness, un-mirrored Consciousness?" And if so, is it this Consciousness which survives the physical death and is re-born?

If you come to Buddhist thought with the assumption that the individual is ultimately real, none of it will make any sense, since the entire point of Buddhadharma is that individual identity is a conceptual fiction that we impose on our initially non-conceptual awareness of reality.

Hardly any different from Vedantic though where the ego, the personality, is seen as an illusion. While the individual is not "ultimately" real he is real in the sense that the thinker believes he is real and because he "believes" (actually, he "knows") the world is real.

As for the idea that people's individual identities must survive death and reincarnate in order for things like justice and good and evil to make sense, that's also not a Buddhist view.

Agreed. What I was/am alluding to is that something does survive, as in the case of ghosts and spirits. Who is to say that that consciousness is not not now in the ghost hell? One could say that it is a mind still attached to the physical plane (one reason why the Hindus cremated the dead, so that the dead could realise that they were dead.) The question is, if someone is dogmatic in their belief in the "theory" of no-self, is he likely to be dogmatically opposed to the idea of consciousness surviving death?

 

[aoji]

The only way to know for sure what happens when you die, is to die; the rest is just speculation.

Speculation can only occur with a physically living thinking mind.Thinking is thinking but speculation is a conscious decision to think about something, usually employing circular reasoning to try to discern differences in viewpoints. There is a difference, IMO.It could be that the dead only know one thought stream, usually at emotional level, whereas speculation could be free of emotion.

... it seems once dead, everything resets to 0. Dead people, I think, cannot think, so as to even know for sure!

I disagree with both assessments. Meditation "supposedly" prepares oneself for death. As someone who has both felt himself dying slowly and dying like a light switch being thrown, there is a difference, the former supporting the Spiritualist (Religion) viewpoint and the former supporting the Materialist (Atheistic) viewpoint.

I say that the dead do think, if they so desire. For example,

That’s where the prince might have a run-in with Rivers’ former nemesis, the late Mrs. Spencer, who was J.P. Morgan’s niece and the original resident.
In a 2009 episode of the TV show “Celebrity Ghost Stories,” Rivers said the pesky spirit was less than welcoming when she moved in 25 years ago and started renovating. “It was just very strange,” Rivers said on the show. “The apartment was cold. I could never get any of my electrical things to work correctly.” Even Rivers’ dog was spooked. “I guess Mrs. Spencer is back,” the doorman told Rivers.
...
The ghost was finally appeased when the comedienne hung a portrait of Mrs. Spencer in the building lobby and left flowers for her in the home’s ballroom.

http://nypost.com/2015/08/26/saudi-prince-guts-joan-rivers-haunted-home/

While that doesn't prove it "to you" I am sure that Ms. Rivers (rest in peace) believed it at the time. My own experiences have convinced me of consciousness surviving after death, none of which I am willing to divulge at this time. But I have seen new converts to Atheism dismiss their earlier experiences, just as I have seen the Rationalist rationalize away his own Reason. (Don't believe it? Well, if you ever had a really bad hang over Reason who dictate that one would never drink again - but they do, just as many people who have had bad drug trips continue to do drugs, just as drivers who drive poorly continue to drive poorly, just as someone who gets divorced re-marries, etc.)

 

[Nakosis]

The only way to know for sure what happens when you die, is to die, the rest is just speculation.

I have memories of living other lives. How trustworthy is a memory? Mine, not so much. If I do have another life, will this life just become an un-trusted memory.

What I don't have is memories of death, some in between time. Except a brief moment at the time of death I thought I was rising up from my body to meet God, then nothing.

Like waking from a dream and the memory quickly fading to something we are no longer certain of.

I also assume that I'll find out when I'm there, but maybe not. Maybe I'll just awake to a new life with no memory of this one, and I'll be in the same position as now, wondering.

This self, identity won't exist in that life. I can imagine whatever connection to these "past lives" but those folks no longer exist.

I suppose this is true of the person as was when born into this life. Nothing about that person still exists but I "feel" there is a connection.

I have been told by folks, who claim to know, that this feeling of connection will get stronger. If this future person feels connected to me, will that make them me?

That I think it what lead to the belief in reincarnation in Tibetan Buddhism, this feeling of connection.

 

[von bek]

Your opinion or misinterpretation of the Buddha's sayings doesn't mean much to me.

Where do you think a fire goes when it is extinguished?

 

[Lyndon]

It isn't extinguished, it travels from one candle to the next candle, that's what the Buddha said, evidently you have another interpretation. Its only when you reach Nibbana that the flame is extinguished.

 

[von bek]

It isn't extinguished, it travels from one candle to the next candle, that's what the Buddha said, evidently you have another interpretation.

No. I am talking about when the Buddha asked where a fire goes when it is extinguished, and likens it to asking where the Buddha goes after passing away. The candles are a different metaphor used in a different context to explain the connection between individual lives. Asking about where the fire goes is dealing with what happens to a buddha after parinibbana.

 

[Lyndon]

That's what I said, the fire isn't extinguished unless you reach Nibbana.

 

[Vishvavajra]

A traditional Buddhist usually "believes" in Re-incarnation and Karma because without them why seek Liberation?

One seeks liberation from vexations, which are a problem in the present. Karma is relevant in that in order to believe that the cessation of vexations is possible, you need to view them as arising naturally from certain causes and conditions. Reincarnation isn't actually part of the equation. The Buddhist notion of rebirth serves a different function. A lot of books about Buddhism by non-Buddhists get this wrong, but Buddhadharma is categorically not about escaping a cycle of reincarnation. That's a misconception that people arrive at by applying Jain/Hindu concepts to the language of Buddhist teachings, which uses similar terms and concepts but often means radically different things by them.

I liken rebirth being like a string of pearls, where each pearl connotes a previous life, but the one constant is the string. It is that string which differentiates Vedanta from Buddhism, with Vedanta saying that the "soul" has always existed and will always exist (at least until such time as one becomes Enlightened and decides not to be re-born) and Buddhism saying that there is no-soul. But even Buddha, upon his Enlightenment said that looking back he saw at least 500 of his previous lives. The consciousness in each previous life is not the same in each sub-sequent life, but there may be Consciousness which one may call a soul.

The irony is that the Buddhist concept of rebirth is almost the opposite of the typical Hindu one, in that it only works because there is no essential self that is being passed from life to life. When you stop seeing the self as a persistent, self-existent entity, then the boundaries of what constitutes "you" are blown wide open. There is no ultimate distinction between "you" and "not you." You can also say that "you" are every sentient being who came before and prepared the way for you, regardless of whether they were related to you in a literal sense.

A lot of the difference has to do with Buddhist phenomenology, which holds that each moment is comprised of unique phenomena that are conditioned by the phenomena of the preceding moment but are not identical to them. In that sense it's pointless to be concerned over whether the candle flame is the same one that was there a second ago, but it's clear that there is a karmic relationship between them.

That sounds awfully dogmatic... Is it something one accepts by faith or has one realised it through meditation?

Ideally it is realized through meditation. That's where the realization first came from, and each student is invited to experience it directly. Simply hearing another person say it can be useful but is not the same things as knowing it. In any case, I don't know how conclusions that one arrives at through a mixture of direct experience and logical inference can be called dogmatic. Dogma is more like the stuff people believe without having a good reason to do so, just because it's traditional.

While the mind is a flux, it is also many threads of thought operating at the same time. When I looked into "my" mind I could see that my first thought in the morning was the a continuation of the last thought-fragment before entering sleep (sleep caused thought to stop in mid-sentence and upon waking the thought was completed); but beyond that I could see that the mind continues to think even in deep sleep since it is now habitual and thus deeply ingrained with the tendency to think even as background noise. The question then becomes, "Is the one who is aware of one's own thinking the "Watcher," the "Witness," undifferentiated Consciousness or Awareness, un-mirrored Consciousness?" And if so, is it this Consciousness which survives the physical death and is re-born?

It's an old question. Certainly there is continuity of consciousness in the sense that present thoughts are conditioned by previous ones, and ultimately by physical structures and processes, which are in turn conditioned by certain events, and so forth. Every moment is connected to the last in some way, and there are patterns to be identified.

On the other hand, it doesn't logically follow that the experience of continuity of consciousness (it is an experience, at least, if not a reality) can be generalized to posit the continuity of personal identity from one human life to another in the literal sense. Babies aren't born continuing the thoughts of people who've just died. That isn't to say that they thoughts they do have aren't conditioned by a variety of factors, but here's where the literal belief in reincarnation tends to beg the question and posit a bunch of stuff that can't be demonstrated in any way, just because it fits the theory people want to believe in. There's a variety of Buddhist thought on the issue, but the general consensus is that nothing of personal identity survives death, though karmic tendencies and conditioned phenomena continue to play out across human lifetimes, since they're not dependent on personal identity in any way.

As for our inborn capacity for pattern recognition, the Buddhist view is that it's a natural process of the mind, the source of the ego or concept of self, responsible for our tendency towards self-referentiality and self-identification, but ultimately just a set of conditioned processes like any other. In other words, it's an illusion, not a genuine seat of selfhood. What's interesting is that in the Chan tradition there is a lot of talk of "seeing one's true nature," etc., so the idea that there is something beneath all the projections and illusion and habit-tendencies is certainly there. However, grasping after a sense of self--including looking for one hiding in there behind those things--is seen as a trap that will prevent a person from seeing their true nature. The reason for that is, it seems, that our true nature is not "self" or anything that could be sensibly described in that way. Our true nature is completely open and free of boundaries such as the one between "self" and "other."

Agreed. What I was/am alluding to is that something does survive, as in the case of ghosts and spirits. Who is to say that that consciousness is not not now in the ghost hell? One could say that it is a mind still attached to the physical plane (one reason why the Hindus cremated the dead, so that the dead could realise that they were dead.) The question is, if someone is dogmatic in their belief in the "theory" of no-self, is he likely to be dogmatically opposed to the idea of consciousness surviving death?

It depends how literally one takes the stories of ghosts and spirits. In Buddhist teachings those are used as a way of pointing towards certain states of mind in a system that is actually entirely geared towards living humans. That isn't to say that they're not useful, or that it's a rationalization--you don't have to get deep into Buddhadharma before the distinction between "literal" and "metaphorical" breaks down entirely.

As for being dogmatically opposed to the idea of consciousness surviving death, I think you're framing it in an uncharitable way. The Buddhist answer, insofar as I can articulate it, is that the question itself entails assumptions of things not in evidence, or which do not fit the case. One doesn't need dogma to oppose something that is by definition nonsensical. In Buddhist thought an essential personal consciousness is an incoherent concept to begin with, so there's no point in debating whether such a thing exists. Or to return to a classic teaching, if someone posits that a flame persists after it has been blown out, and another denies it or finds fault with the theory behind the claim (such as what it would mean for a flame to persist in a non-flame state or be identical to another flame at a different place and time), which is being dogmatic?

 

[Vishvavajra]

It isn't extinguished, it travels from one candle to the next candle, that's what the Buddha said, evidently you have another interpretation. Its only when you reach Nibbana that the flame is extinguished.

No, that's a corruption of what Nagasena said in his dialog with King Milinda. In that case the (rhetorical) question was, when you use one lamp to light another one, is the new flame the same or different from the one used to light it? The answer is that it is both the same and different, or neither, depending how you define those terms. In any case, there is a karmic relationship between the two. That is how Nagasena explains the Buddhist understanding of rebirth.

The sutra in which the Buddha asks the rhetorical question about where a fire goes is a different teaching. The connection of the word Nirvana with the snuffing out of a flame is at attempt at explaining its etymology, which may or may not be valid. None of those contexts are directly connected, nor am I aware of any Buddhist teaching that describes human lives as flames that transmigrate until Nirvana snuffs them out. That sounds like a heterodox view (i.e. something brought in from Jainism or a form of Hinduism).

 

[atanu]

For those of you really into Buddhism that want to read an excellent but very long and small print article about the Buddhist concepts of not self, atman, and the concepts of the Buddhist God being the Dharmakaya, a force of truth, but certainly not Biblically based like Jehovah as portrayed in the Old Testament. Check it out, this is an author that believes we do have a higher self or "soul" or atman, and that Buddhism has a Deity or God/Theism , just one nothing like the description of Jehovah in the Bible, check it out.

Buddhism and the No-soul Doctrine (v4) | BRISBANE GOODWILL unit of service.

This may interest some:
http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/...-Speaking-tree-The-Dharma-Body-26082015014040

Spoiler: Dharma body

http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/...-Speaking-tree-The-Dharma-Body-26082015014040

THICH NHAT HANH

Before passing away , the Buddha told his monks, “My friends, this is only my physical body . My Dharma body will be with you for as long as you continue to practice. Take refuge in the Dharma. Take refuge in the island of Self. The Buddha is there.“ His statement was very clear. If you touch the living Dharma body (Dharmakaya), you will not complain that you were born more than 2,500 years after the Buddha and have no chance to see him or study with him.

The Dharmakaya of the Buddha is always present, always alive. Wherever there is compassion and understanding, the Buddha is there, and we can see and touch him. Buddha as the living Dharma is sometimes called Vairochana. He is made of light, flowers, joy and peace, and we can walk with him, sit with him and take his hand. As we enter the realm of Avatamsaka, it is Vairochana Buddha we encounter.

In the Avatamsaka realm, there is a lot of light. The Buddha and the bodhisattvas are all made of light. Let yourself be touched by the light, which is the enlightenment of the Buddha. Allow yourself to be transformed by the light. Mindfulness is light.

When you practice waking meditation alone, enjoying each step deeply , you emit the light of mindfulness, joy and peace. Let us enter the Avatamsaka realm together and enjoy it. Later, we can open the door for others to come, too.

This book Cultivating the Mind of Love: Easyread Edition can also be read at Google books or may be purchased from Amazon.

http://www.amazon.in/Cultivating-Mind-Love-Easyread-Edition/dp/1442994290

 

[aoji]

Namaste.

Since you were thoughtful enough to answer in great detail (thank you very much), our conversation shall have to be over many days.

One seeks liberation from vexations, which are a problem in the present. Karma is relevant in that in order to believe that the cessation of vexations is possible, you need to view them as arising naturally from certain causes and conditions. Reincarnation isn't actually part of the equation.

"Life is suffering," the Buddha said. When we are young we seldom realise that we are suffering, perhaps self-caused. With our actions we create karma out of ignorance. As we get older we start to suffer body ailments. And we start to ask, "Why?" If we meditate, there may come a time when one can see the future, especially if we meditate while we sleep.

Being sensitive to knowing what is going to happen then opens the possibility of not letting it happen. Unfortunately, knowing the future one may realise that one is powerless to change it. One then asks if one should "sheepishly" just accept it, or fight it and let the karma play out at another lifetime? In other words, since they are naturally arising, and since they had their origins in another lifetime, should one feel powerless to accept the responsibility? For most of us, we just accept it (because we must since we are powerless to affect it) as karmic responsibility, but that acceptance is also "pre-ordained" (just as it is supposedly "pre-ordained" that we will become Enlightened in some lifetime, now or in the future.) At best, all we can do is to live the best life we can. We know that we are 'basically' either good "or" evil. Those who are evil probably won't give a second thought to their actions; the good person can never understand what goes through the mind of an evil person.

The problem with the theory of re-incarnation is that we have a Western understanding of it, that what we are really thinking of is transmigration. Buddhists prefer the term "re-birth" to de-note that there is no Self which trans-migrates from body to body. But the idea of a "Self" is also a Western concept, heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion; like an Id, or Ego, through an identification with a body, and that that body, or specifically that spirit-body-image, a physical representation of the physical-body, survives after death. So, when the question of God comes up, I can only associate it with a Judeo-Christian Creator God, since that is the culture and society I grew up in.

The irony is that the Buddhist concept of rebirth is almost the opposite of the typical Hindu one, in that it only works because there is no essential self that is being passed from life to life. When you stop seeing the self as a persistent, self-existent entity, then the boundaries of what constitutes "you" are blown wide open.

Again, are we talking about a personalized "self" or an im-personalized and Universal "Self," the difference being the size of the "s"? Can someone who has identified with their body be able to accept that that consciousness which identifies itself residing within a body organism does not survive after death? That is the crux of Religion, of any Religion - "What happens after death?"

Going back to meditating while sleeping we can see our Consciousness (big "C") looking and talking to our consciousness (little "c"). It may have a different name, it may tell 'you' its name and address you by your waking-state name. Who, or what is this consciousness that sees the embodied & identified consciousness? How is it possible that the brain-conciousness can be divided, identifying with two consciousnesses at the same time? (If one believes that the brain is the only reality, say the Atheist position of the after-life/after-death.) It is that "supreme" (as opposed to a Supreme, big 'S', de-noting a Universal Consciousness), consciousness which some call the Self.

There is no ultimate distinction between "you" and "not you."

There is no distinction between "you" and "not you" only because one has not experienced another "state" of "you". I gave the example of a higher level consciousness which one can experience in a sleeping state. But that state of "not you" cannot be experienced by a self, at least by a consciousness which is experiencing it at the time, at the moment. It is only afterwards that one realizes what one has experienced and so catagorizes it and gives it a name. It is like making Tantric love: There comes a point where thinking stops and one experiences a state of "not-you" because "thinking is 'you';" no thinking, no you. ("I think, therefore I am." I think-not, I am-not. As in deep sleep. But if one meditates in deep sleep one can come to know that even when he is not, "He" is.) Afterwards one shakes off the muddiness of the mind and realises that one was not thinking, one was pure-feeling. (I use "s" instead of "z" in words to de-note one's personal experience, as in "realise" versus "realize"; "z" is the logical conclusion, "s" is the non-logical conclusion; the "personal" versus the "impersonal". That's just my language, how I talk, how I think.)

A lot of the difference has to do with Buddhist phenomenology, which holds that each moment is comprised of unique phenomena that are conditioned by the phenomena of the preceding moment but are not identical to them. /quote]

I tend to believe in Quantum Theory, and I say that what happened is the only thing that could have happened because if it could have happened differently then it would have happened differently. There may be infinite possibilities but the only possibility, the one at the present moment, is that one which is experienced by a consciousness.

In any case, I don't know how conclusions that one arrives at through a mixture of direct experience and logical inference can be called dogmatic. Dogma is more like the stuff people believe without having a good reason to do so, just because it's traditional.

It happens after the fact, through Rationalization. I said that you sounded Dogmatic because there was no indication that you realized it through experience. Rationalization typically tries to explain away one's experience because the experience is at odds with one's logic.

In the realm of Religion one has to have a starting place, and so one accepts it without question. It's the defense of one's beliefs which makes it Dogmatic, it has an emotional element attached to it when questioned, with that emotional element giving it a sense of authority which should not be questioned. One speaks Dogmatically to prevent the other from further questioning.

So if one "dryly" says something, something that sounds as if it came out of a book, something that seemingly has a different "flavour" or "tone" from the rest of the statement, then one may think that is is Dogmatic.

It could be that one is trying to establish a baseline for communication, hoping that the other has some pre-conception of the ideas one is trying to find common-ground with. But vast assumptions are being made, like the words "God," "Re-incarnation," "Re-birth," "Self," "self," "Silence," etc. Each word pre-supposes that it means the same thing that the other thinks it means. For most of us whose minds are always thinking, a term like "Silence" may have no meaning until we actually experience it, and 'experiencing it' means that one is conscious that one is consciously experiencing it, at the moment, not giving it a name afterwards.

... to be continued ...

 

[Vishvavajra]

Again, are we talking about a personalized "self" or an im-personalized and Universal "Self," the difference being the size of the "s"?

Where you lose me is in the assertion that "impersonalized self" is a coherent concept. It seems to me there is no concept of selfhood that is not on some level an attempt to personalize reality, which entails conceptual divisions. After all, the concept of "self" is meaningless without the concept of "other." In any case, this line of thinking is alien to Buddhadharma, which holds that concepts are not reality and that it's impossible to arrive at direct experience thereof through conceptual means.

That's why the most effective methods of meditation are non-conceptual, being mostly rooted in physical sensations. In meditation it's not uncommon for one's sense of self to expand and seem to encompass the entire room or even the entire universe, but we're warned not to take that seriously; it's just another conceptualization—i.e. wandering thoughts. In observing one's method there is no concept of selfhood that arises, whether small or large.

It's probably surprising to people that Buddhist meditation techniques tend to focus the mind on the sensations of the body and discourage loftier thinking, but there's a very good reason for that.