Buddhist Have a Soul

[wizanda]

Though had similar topics discussing that we need a better word for self, as it has been confused in many religions...

Because atman (Sanskrit), psyche (Greek), nephesh (Hebrew) all mean self, soul, life; all stemming from the root breath.

It is ridiculous to say Buddhist don't have a soul, we all do; i know Buddha's soul from Heaven (Nirvana/Øneness).

If we check what Buddha said about it, he didn't deny or reject having a soul in any texts I've found...

Instead it seems he opposed both schools of Hindu thought of Atman Vs Anātman; thus to sit in the middle line, as with most of his teachings.

So when we look into it because the eternal character is like a melody, that is ever changing; it is equated with the word santāna, which is the continuity of our own consciousness.

Thus there is no difference between using the English word soul, and santāna; the problem comes when we use the term atman, psyche, and nephesh, as it means self as well.

A soul doesn't need a sense of self, it is just a melody, character, flavour, artistic splodge of colours, wave form etc; applying a 1 to it (self) or 0 (selfless), only changes the way it interacts in the surrounding environment.

So for instance, you can put your soul into a musical instrument; yet if you have to much sense of self, you spoil it by wondering what others think; whereas if you're selfless you can truly express your whole heart and soul through it, and literally place your soul into it, thus creating amazing music that touches other people's heart and soul.

By understanding our own character's unique traits, that are continuous (santāna) throughout life times, we can even find previous incarnations of ourselves, as the melody is the same.

It is like the whole idea of finding the reincarnated lamas, shows that the soul transmigrates, and yet then people deny having a soul, as maybe they want to oppose other religions or maybe they've just not looked into it.

Think when the word heart has been used by the Buddha, he was referring to the soul; as that is where we're connected to our soul...

He wasn't denying the metaphysical aspects, and being an atheist, that is people's own choice due to words being ambiguous, and thus the true meanings have been lost.

By recognizing our own character/soul, we can then learn to be more selfless, as we become one with our own identity, and can see when we're being full of self...

By denying our own character, and trying to be ambiguous, we can still be full of projected ego, whilst not realizing this is the case, as we've got no base to work from.

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Wizanda ji

Very nice questions , ...I am sorry that I missed your previous post we need a better word for self, ....I will go back later to read the thread , ....

t is ridiculous to say Buddhist don't have a soul, we all do; i know Buddha's soul from Heaven (Nirvana/Øneness).

If we check what Buddha said about it, he didn't deny or reject having a soul in any texts I've found...

Instead it seems he opposed both schools of Hindu thought of Atman Vs Anātman; thus to sit in the middle line, as with most of his teachings.

So when we look into it because the eternal character is like a melody, that is ever changing; it is equated with the word santāna, which is the continuity of our own consciousness.

personaly I would agree , .....what seems to be grossly missunderstood thus missrepresented is that the Buddha of this age Sakyamuni Buddha in an act of wisdom , according to time place and circumstance , rejected the corupted Vedic practices of the day this does not nececarily mean he rejected all vedic principles , what he did by remaining silent on some issues was to cause the spiritual aspirants of his day to search within rather than to blindly follow cultural tradition , ....

So when we look into it because the eternal character is like a melody, that is ever changing; it is equated with the word santāna, which is the continuity of our own consciousness.

Thus there is no difference between using the English word soul, and santāna; the problem comes when we use the term atman, psyche, and nephesh, as it means self as well.

true yes , ...untill our understanding is perfected our temporary character is changing , but our underlaying eternal 'Sanatana' nature remains unchanged , ....it is only that because we are not in full knowledge of its true nature we are subject to repeated birth and thus we experience the illusion of change .

it would seem also that in this condition we mistakenly identify with the self in many incorect ways , ...

Thus there is no difference between using the English word soul, and santāna; the problem comes when we use the term atman, psyche, and nephesh, as it means self as well.

Some Hindu are in the habit of using the ternm Sanatana Dharma , as it means both etenal law and eternal nature , understand this and one can understand our individual position within it , ....and our relationship to it , ...

yet many a buddhist I have spoken to seem to reject this idea of eternality , however some do not , so surely we must question the gulf between understandings , my personal veiw is that the buddha intended us to question and to push boundaries of understanding rather than to cling to second hand understandings of Doctrine , ....

So for instance, you can put your soul into a musical instrument; yet if you have to much sense of self, you spoil it by wondering what others think; whereas if you're selfless you can truly express your whole heart and soul through it, and literally place your soul into it, thus creating amazing music that touches other people's heart and soul.

this is a beautifull analogy , ....and illustrates perfectly the problems of false identification with the self , ...as this temporary self veiwing everything through its own lense thinks it self the dooer thus often wants accolade for , or seeks to assert ownership of its actions , .....but the player who lets the music cary him allong and who is willing to see where the music takes him is the greater of men as he is willing to become a part of the music rather than having to be its proprietor , ....thus music can flow between one player and another transporting both the player and the listener to a different realm , ....

By understanding our own character's unique traits, that are continuous (santāna) throughout life times, we can even find previous incarnations of ourselves, as the melody is the same.

yes ,similar to the above , ...if we can understand the nature and tendancies of the temporary self we can remove these layers of ignorance freeing ourselves from the false ego and alowing ourselves to experience our true nature , ...

It is like the whole idea of finding the reincarnated lamas, shows that the soul transmigrates, and yet then people deny having a soul, as maybe they want to oppose other religions or maybe they've just not looked into it.

whether we all it soul or prakriti there is something which transmigrates , that carries the imprint of both wisdom and ignorance from one being to another , ...those that deny this are prehaps associating too heavily with our physical nature to the point that fear procludes them from opening their eyes to any other possibility .

Think when the word heart has been used by the Buddha, he was referring to the soul; as that is where we're connected to our soul...

Chitta , ...is symultaniously mind , inteligence and heart , ..it also caries memory and intention thus whether we wish to refer to it as Soul , Atman or Buddha Nature it is an inner force which can drive or inspier the gross mind of the body it inhabits , except in the case of those that deny its existance as this becomes like the musician that thinks he is the proprietor of the music rather than thinking that the music flows through him , ...

He wasn't denying the metaphysical aspects, and being an atheist, that is people's own choice due to words being ambiguous, and thus the true meanings have been lost.

Jai Jai , ...to my mind the Buddha merely encouraged us to go beyond the confines of our physical form and to descover our true nature , ....those that hold that his stance was atheistic should prehaps be prepaired to question assumptions based on such ambiguities , .....after all this is what the buddha recomended that we do , ...

By recognizing our own character/soul, we can then learn to be more selfless, as we become one with our own identity, and can see when we're being full of self...

even willingness to look would be a major advance , who knows in this frame of willingness we may be able to approach many subjects which ail mankind , even desolve many of the boundaries of religion which cause such constanation .

By denying our own character, and trying to be ambiguous, we can still be full of projected ego, whilst not realizing this is the case, as we've got no base to work from.

Jai Jai , by cling to the false ego we set our selves up for a life of conflict , ....and the tedium of constantly defending ones own position , .....on the otherhand one who tries to understand his own true nature also discovers the true nature of others , this surely promotes tollerance and compassion , ....

 

[LuisDantas]

Like it or else, Buddhism is built with the concept of Anatta at its core.

You may challenge that notion, of course. But not without rejecting Buddhism itself.

 

[wizanda]

Like it or else, Buddhism is built with the concept of Anatta at its core.

Yes, which is to mean without self.... Being without a soul would mean you don't exist; we all have a unique character (santāna), independent from each other.

Even within being one with Brahman in the core of reality, Buddha and myself have unique souls, that can be identified by distinct colour/sound/energy, and sit in different places around the core.

But not without rejecting Buddhism itself.

So nope we don't need to remove Buddhism; just refine our understanding based on what exists.

 

[wizanda]

this is a beautifull analogy , ....and illustrates perfectly the problems of false identification with the self , ...as this temporary self veiwing everything through its own lense thinks it self the dooer thus often wants accolade for , or seeks to assert ownership of its actions , .....but the player who lets the music cary him allong and who is willing to see where the music takes him is the greater of men as he is willing to become a part of the music rather than having to be its proprietor , ....thus music can flow between one player and another transporting both the player and the listener to a different realm , ....

This is also a beautiful expansion to the analogy as well, thank you forgot to include that aspect of being a good musician, that you become the music, and if without self, especially with multiple musicians, your soul just goes with the flow.

Namaste Ratikala-Ji, you've impressed me with your deep understanding many times on here.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Ima challenge what you said because some things stuck out that didn't seem right in regards to Buddhist teachings.

Because atman (Sanskrit), psyche (Greek), nephesh (Hebrew) all mean self, soul, life; all stemming from the root breath.

The definitions of these words would kind of clear up my points:

Atman: Life-force within every living thing and being. I guess you can call it breathe. However, breathe is referring to living beings from plants and animals to humans. Atman is the "breathe" not breathe of everything in the universe. So, the way you use Atman doesn't have the root word breathe but life-force is closer and more accurate. Atman

Psyche has no comparison to breathe or life. It's the motivation, thoughts, and deepest feelings. Hence the study of psychology-the mind. Psyche

Self-is what we are that distinguishes us as individuals from another individual.

Soul is a religious word. Mostly used in Abrahamic terms. Non-self, anitta, life, or breathe don't correlate with the word soul, since soul refers to the essence of a person's spiritual identity while self is the actual person, life is the breathe/life-force that keeps him living-heart pounding etc, and psyche being his feelings, thoughts, and mind of the person.

The Buddha taught about non-self. That was the core of his teaching. Here in his: Anatta-lakkhana Sutta he talks about it. When we say soul, we are talking about a permanent essence of a person. When we say life, we are talking about a permanent force that keeps someone alive. The Buddha's teachings focus on the psyche and how our psyche or mind is ever changing-the teaching of impermanence. The soul is not impermanence. It has no "Buddhist" equivalent. Hindu, maybe. Not Buddhism.

Buddhism doesn't talk about "breathe". That's another word that says there is a permanent self or shell to which the breathe moves in and out. The Buddha says everything is ever changing. There is no shell. No self. No body. No soul. Perfect Zen.

It is ridiculous to say Buddhist don't have a soul, we all do; i know Buddha's soul from Heaven (Nirvana/Øneness).

On that former note, it depends on your belief.The extreme difference between Oneness/Heaven and Nivanna is that the former is a permanent state of mind. It doesn't change back from out of oneness and then back in. Once one reaches that state, it's everlasting. Nivanna is the complete understanding of the nature of impermanence. It's the understanding or enlightenment of rebirth and liberation from being in rebirth in order to understand the nature of life. There isn't a oneness because in the impermanent view, oneness becomes not oneness and back into oneness again. It's doesn't stay. It fluctuates outside and inside of itself (as so described in the sutta above).

So, in other words, Buddhist do not have a soul-a permanent self. If they did, it's not the way most people would refer to a soul as the identity or character of a person because in their view, it suggest that identity is solid and everything within it changes. Not so with The Buddha's teachings. Everything changes. So, soul doesn't correlate.

If we check what Buddha said about it, he didn't deny or reject having a soul in any texts I've found...

He never talked about a soul. He talked about self and non-self. They are two different concepts.

Instead it seems he opposed both schools of Hindu thought of Atman Vs Anātman; thus to sit in the middle line, as with most of his teachings.

He denied Atman not Anatman.

Given Anatman means "is the idea that there is no self; at least no self in the Hindu definition of atman. There are three aspects to the concept of anatman: 1) lack of an essence. 2) impermanence. 3)interdependence on individuals and things." Aka the sutra I posted above.

So when we look into it because the eternal character is like a melody, that is ever changing; it is equated with the word santāna, which is the continuity of our own consciousness.

I haven't heard of Santana and couldn't find it in the sutras rather than Wiki. However, when you say melody, it sounds like you are referring to impermanence-a person's ever changing identity rather than a soul-a person's permanent identity. The "melody" is what the Buddha taught.

Thus there is no difference between using the English word soul, and santāna; the problem comes when we use the term atman, psyche, and nephesh, as it means self as well.

Now it sounds like you're confusing the words. The Buddha taught non-self (Annatta).. He did not say it meant self. He said the opposite. There is no self. He denied Atman becuase in Buddhism there is no life-force that keeps people alive. No "god" in other words. If anything, the only word that relates to The Buddha's teaching of a person's identity is the psyche because that is ever changing and fluctuates.

It is like the whole idea of finding the reincarnated lamas, shows that the soul transmigrates, and yet then people deny having a soul, as maybe they want to oppose other religions or maybe they've just not looked into it.

People don't deny the soul. They just don't use the same terminology to define their identity beyond their material selves.

Think when the word heart has been used by the Buddha, he was referring to the soul; as that is where we're connected to our soul.

The Buddha taught liberation and connection with one's mind/psyche not soul/permanent identity.

He wasn't denying the metaphysical aspects, and being an atheist, that is people's own choice due to words being ambiguous, and thus the true meanings have been lost.

He denied all metaphysics (supernatural) that the people of his day practice from esoteric practices to those of the Brahmas (if I'm getting it correct Hindu?) and other Hindu teachings that are, in his view, not connected to the mind but a reach to go outside oneself for answers. He taught the opposite.

By recognizing our own character/soul, we can then learn to be more selfless, as we become one with our own identity, and can see when we're being full of self...

Psyche refers to a person's character. Soul refers to a person's identity. One's character is composed of their thoughts, experiences, interpretations, etc. Soul is a religious term. People use it interchangeably, but there is no such thing as soul. So...

By denying our own character, and trying to be ambiguous, we can still be full of projected ego, whilst not realizing this is the case, as we've got no base to work from.

Since what you define as soul, The Buddha calls psyche (English translation) and defines as anatta, there is no conflict just difference in terms.

 

[wizanda]

The definitions of these words would kind of clear up my points:

atman (Sanskrit), psyche (Greek), nephesh (Hebrew)

Added the etymologies of each word, so you can see what they mean, and how they all have the same root breath.

The word psyche has been translated within the New Testament; wasn't referring to its psychological usage.

Soul is a religious word.

All these words mean soul, self, life.

He never talked about a soul.

Is there an Eternal Soul?

 

[George-ananda]

Like it or else, Buddhism is built with the concept of Anatta at its core.

You may challenge that notion, of course. But not without rejecting Buddhism itself.

Advaita accepts 'anatta' too, but that does not imply there are no ever-changing impermanent physical bodies and soul bodies that we for a time identify with as 'us' (until we reach Nirvana/Moksha and realize that the sense of individuality was illusion).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Is there an Eternal Soul?

Which includes the following:

"The Buddha taught that what we conceive as something eternal within us, is merely a combination of physical and mental aggregates or forces (pancakkhandha), made up of body or matter (rupakkhandha), sensation (vedanakkhandha), perception (sannakkhandha), mental formations (samkharakkhandha) and consciousness (vinnanakkhandha). These forces are working together in a flux of momentary change; they are never the same for two consecutive moments. They are the component forces of the psycho-physical life. When the Buddha analyzed the psycho-physical life, He found only these five aggregates or forces. He did not find any eternal soul. However, many people still have the misconception that the soul is the consciousness. The Buddha declared in unequivocal terms that consciousness depends on matter, sensation, perception and mental formations and that is cannot exist independently of them."

You are trying to misrepresent Buddhist teachings to make them fit your strange DIY religion.

 

[George-ananda]

Though had similar topics discussing that we need a better word for self, as it has been confused in many religions...

Yes words used by different schools muddies the water when we discuss things. My understanding of Buddhism is that we have a soul that will experience rebirth until Nirvana is reached.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

My understanding of Buddhism is that we have a soul that will experience rebirth until Nirvana is reached.

No, that is wrong. You are perhaps confusing Buddhism with Hinduism.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So nope we don't need to remove Buddhism; just refine our understanding based on what exists.

Nope, you need to stop misrepresenting authentic traditions to make them fit your strange DIY religion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Though had similar topics discussing that we need a better word for self, as it has been confused in many religions...

Because atman (Sanskrit), psyche (Greek), nephesh (Hebrew) all mean self, soul, life; all stemming from the root breath.

It is ridiculous to say Buddhist don't have a soul, we all do; i know Buddha's soul from Heaven (Nirvana/Øneness).

If we check what Buddha said about it, he didn't deny or reject having a soul in any texts I've found...

Instead it seems he opposed both schools of Hindu thought of Atman Vs Anātman; thus to sit in the middle line, as with most of his teachings.

So when we look into it because the eternal character is like a melody, that is ever changing; it is equated with the word santāna, which is the continuity of our own consciousness.

Thus there is no difference between using the English word soul, and santāna; the problem comes when we use the term atman, psyche, and nephesh, as it means self as well.

A soul doesn't need a sense of self, it is just a melody, character, flavour, artistic splodge of colours, wave form etc; applying a 1 to it (self) or 0 (selfless), only changes the way it interacts in the surrounding environment.

So for instance, you can put your soul into a musical instrument; yet if you have to much sense of self, you spoil it by wondering what others think; whereas if you're selfless you can truly express your whole heart and soul through it, and literally place your soul into it, thus creating amazing music that touches other people's heart and soul.

By understanding our own character's unique traits, that are continuous (santāna) throughout life times, we can even find previous incarnations of ourselves, as the melody is the same.

It is like the whole idea of finding the reincarnated lamas, shows that the soul transmigrates, and yet then people deny having a soul, as maybe they want to oppose other religions or maybe they've just not looked into it.

Think when the word heart has been used by the Buddha, he was referring to the soul; as that is where we're connected to our soul...

He wasn't denying the metaphysical aspects, and being an atheist, that is people's own choice due to words being ambiguous, and thus the true meanings have been lost.

By recognizing our own character/soul, we can then learn to be more selfless, as we become one with our own identity, and can see when we're being full of self...

By denying our own character, and trying to be ambiguous, we can still be full of projected ego, whilst not realizing this is the case, as we've got no base to work from.

Are you sure it's not interconnectivity by which all things mental and physical remain empty? Even melodies come and go.

Objectification, even mental ones, lack qualities by which habitually are taken as substantial and original as it appears here.

You could ask, What's original soul?

 

[George-ananda]

No, that is wrong. You are perhaps confusing Buddhism with Hinduism.

No, I know the difference. One of the Buddhists I studied (among others) is the Dali Lama. Here is what he teaches about reincarnation/rebirth

He talks about reincarnation for the Holy Men that return to teach and for the common man because of continuing desires.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

He talks about reincarnation for the Holy Men that return to teach and for the common man because of continuing desires.

Buddhism teaches rebirth, not reincarnation. No soul. Anatta, sunyata, etc. Buddhism is NOT Advaita, so please stop muddying the water.

I am a little tired of the way non-Buddhists on this forum continually misrepresent Buddhist teachings, either to make it fit a DIY religion or to make it sound like another school of Hinduism. Too many people with an agenda.

Perhaps I will start telling you about the "true meaning" of the teachings on Advaita. Yeah, I know it's your practice, but maybe you don't understand it properly, maybe you need somebody from outside your tradition to set you straight and show how you are missing the point.

Of course I'm only joking, but can you see how patronising this attitude sounds? Rude even.

No wonder there are so few Buddhists posting here.

 

[George-ananda]

Buddhism teaches rebirth, not reincarnation. No soul. Anatta, sunyata, etc. Buddhism is NOT Advaita, so please stop muddying the water.

So what is this 'rebirth' Buddhism teaches then? I think the Buddhist Dalai Lama explains it well (if you read the link I provided).

I am a little tired of the way people keep misrepresenting Buddhist teachings on this forum, either to make it fit a DIY religion or to make it into another school of Hinduism.

Does the Dalai Lama and many other Buddhists misrepresent Buddhism too?

Perhaps I will start lecturing you about the "true meaning" of the teachings on Advaita. Yeah, I know it's your practice, but maybe you don't understand it properly, maybe you need somebody from outside your tradition to set you straight and show how you are missing the point.

If you think I have something wrong about Advaita I would be willing to consider what you say.

No wonder there are so few Buddhists posting here.

Actually on here the predominant Buddhist school seems to be a 'materialistic' one that differs in no way I can see from atheistic-materialism. This is in no way the predominant form of Buddhism in the world and in history.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Actually on here the predominant Buddhist school seems to be a 'materialistic' one that differs in no way I can see from atheistic-materialism.

So the Buddhists here are not really proper Buddhists? Who on earth are you to make such patronising and ill-informed pronouncements? It really is none of your business frankly.

 

[George-ananda]

So the Buddhists here are not really proper Buddhists? Who on earth are you to make such patronising and ill-informed pronouncements? It really is none of your business frankly.

I stay out of the Buddhist DIR section but this is 'General Religious Debates'. I am free to point out my opinion that this atheistic-materialist school of Buddhism is not representative of Buddhism as a whole.

 

[von bek]

Does the Dalai Lama and many other Buddhists misrepresent Buddhism too?

From the Dalai Lama's site:

On the whole, non-Buddhist Indian schools have more or less come to the conclusion that the "self" really refers to this independent agent or atman. It refers to what is independent of our body and mind. Buddhist traditions on the whole have rejected the temptation to posit a "self," an atman, or a soul that is independent of our body and mind. Among Buddhist schools there is consensus on the point that "self" or "I" must be understood in terms of the aggregation of body and mind. But as to what, exactly, we are referring when we say "I" or "self," there has been divergence of opinion even among Buddhist thinkers. Many Buddhist schools maintain that in the final analysis we must identify the "self" with the consciousness of the person. Through analysis, we can show how our body is a kind of contingent fact and that what continues across time is really a being's consciousness.

Of course, other Buddhist thinkers have rejected the move to identify "self" with consciousness. Buddhist thinkers such as Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti have rejected the urge to seek some kind of eternal, abiding, or enduring "self." They have argued that following that kind of reasoning is, in a sense, succumbing to the ingrained need to grasp at something. An analysis of the nature of "self" along these lines will yield nothing because the quest involved here is metaphysical; it is a quest for a metaphysical self in which, Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti argue, we are going beyond the domain of the understanding of everyday language and everyday experience. Therefore "self," person, and agent must be understood purely in terms of how we experience our sense of "self." We should not go beyond the level of the conventional understanding of "self" and person.

http://dalailama.com/teachings/training-the-mind/verse-1

 

[wizanda]

Which includes the following:

The link was to quote what Buddha said when asked about the self, soul and selfless...

Thus reading someone's commentary, isn't then what Buddha taught...

Find me a quote from Buddha stating we have no soul, and will question it.

a soul that will experience rebirth until Nirvana is reached.

Having already been to that place/state within my NDE, we have a soul, it is just without boundaries, as it is part of infinite consciousness.

Nope, you need to stop misrepresenting authentic traditions to make them fit your strange DIY religion.

Unless you find me evidence from Buddha saying contrary; not sure why i shouldn't speak from what i know of Heaven, and correlate the worlds religions to make more sense of them for everyone...

Yet by all means I'm completely open to questioning any evidence, and then to refine what I've stated....

Yet if you can't show a logical flaw, other than what a religion says, where everything is corrupted here in the Maya/Hell; then clearly I'm entitled to an opinion based on first hand experience.

Are you sure it's not interconnectivity by which all things mental and physical remain empty?

Our soul isn't physical, it attaches to us by our heart, and controls this body.... Think everyone's soul is infinite, even the worst of us.

A clap in different spaces sounds different, same with our soul.

Objectification, even mental ones

The soul is like water, if we try to hold it, it runs away; think this western idea of the soul being something solid, misses the point.

No wonder there are so few Buddhists posting here.

Because generally Buddhist don't debate, as they're open to both opposing ideas.