Buddhist Have a Soul

[serp777]

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.

What makes you think anyone has a soul or why couldn't it be the case that some people don't have souls, and yet they act completely like they do have a soul? Also how do you define a soul?

 

[serp777]

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.

There's no such thing as "Buddhism as a whole". There are hundreds of different interpretations and beliefs and axioms. Very few things are actually representative of Buddhism as a whole. Everyone has their 1 cent interpretation.

 

[wizanda]

Also how do you define a soul?

Our soul is the dynamic character, that controls this meat suit we call a body....For someone not to have a soul, would mean there is no mechanism to control it.

The mind in a physical sense is just a computer for automating the soul's wishes, and regulating the body.

The universal mind (CPU) creates the Matrix (mathematical grid) we exist within, and thus it is possible to say that all of reality comes from the mind; yet we still have unique characters, that are playing this Massive Multiple Player Game.

 

[George-ananda]

There's no such thing as "Buddhism as a whole". There are hundreds of different interpretations and beliefs and axioms. Very few things are actually representative of Buddhism as a whole. Everyone has their 1 cent interpretation.

Perhaps on RF that is true, but in its traditional cultural areas there are indeed major schools and sects. The Wikipedia article I quoted was giving a brief summary of these schools/sects teachings on 'rebirth'. My point was that this 'materialist' interpretation popular on RF is not at all indicative of the whole world of Buddhism.

 

[ratikala]

Bless you Mr O'Shez

So another thread where non-Buddhists are pontificating about what Buddhists should believe....absolute BS.

I think the original thread question was relating to a veiw held by many Mahayana peacitioners prehaps you have not met many ? ...however here is your chance to discuss and learn , I do not expact you to agree , you are free to hold which ever veiw siuts your practice best , ....but prehaps you could refrain from making sweeping generalisations about others , ....

after all what makes a person a Buddhist ?
....those that hold to a ridgid set of beleifs ? ....or those that carry out the the precepts on a dialy basis ?

when asked the Dalai Lama recomended the latter , ....what seems to be prefered here is that one adheres to a set of beleifs one beleives one shoud support even if it means dissregarding the eightfold path and being down right hostile to others , .....

ok so lets talk , ..is Buddism about actions , or about beleif ?

can you gain enlightenment by adhering to a beleif ?

I've been at this for 35 years and I am currently responsible for a long stretch of coast.

please excuse my ignorance but what is a long streatch of coast ?

The opinions expressed here about Buddhism are facile and ludicrous.

sadly from where I stand the agression expressed in the name of Buddhism as a closed knit group is alarmingly facile , ....
what sadens me even more so is that when a person dissagrees with something another has said that thing is cast aside as a mere opinion , but when they them selves speak they consider their thoughts and understandings to be facts ? ......this is quite laughable when we examine it , ......

one of the sweetest peices of advice I read from a meditation teacher , was about being prepaired to let go of all conceptions , .....I do not remember now who he was quoting , prehaps later I will go find the book , .....but on the subject of clinging , and it is something we all have a tendancy to do , .....the advice given was basiclay not to dig oneself into a hole , just give something a chance , ...dont dismiss it , hear it out ....after all , and these were his words , ...''what do we have to loose except our ignorance '', .....

you know this sadhana , it is not about selecting and memorising texts and using them as ammunition against each other , it is about putting their essence into practice and defeating Mara within , and if two different schools or traditions meet do they realy have to fear eachother to the point of feeling the need to defeat , scilence or discredit the other ? , ....

if we feel like this , .....there is something wrong , .....

and as for ..... ''I've been at this 35 years'' , ......?

that's very nice , ....35 years , 35 days , 35 lifetimes , ...however long it takes just keep going , ....

 

[ratikala]

Namaste Mr serp777 , ....

There's no such thing as "Buddhism as a whole". There are hundreds of different interpretations and beliefs and axioms. Very few things are actually representative of Buddhism as a whole. Everyone has their 1 cent interpretation.

''Everyone has their 1 cent interpretation.'' .....yes, ....only due to ignorance , .....

basicaly if we were to try to difine Buddhism it would have to run something allong the lines of...a beleif system based upon the teachings of the Buddha combined with the beleif that Buddhi (enlightenment) is an accheivable state of wisdom and being , .....

what I dont understand is that the un enlightened think that an opinion can even be had about it ?

surely this is the failing of the western mind , in many instances we are attatched to an illusion of our interlectual superiority so much so that we think that the un enlightened can inturpret the words of the enlightened , ...?

if we beleive that Buddhi is an attainable state and that freedom from conditioned thinking and behavior is the answer to our suffering , then naturaly we follow the teachings of the Buddha , ....

to fall prey to the idea that Buddhism can be split into numerous different inturpretations is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bath water .

what we see of Buddhism when veiwing it from outside are different cultural practices but all these practices center around the same beleif , that enlightenment is an attainable state .

what we have in the west is the sadly deluded notion that we are allready sufficently enlightened as to be able to re inturpret the teachings cherry picking parts of the whole which fit into our own understanding of reality and subverting them to bolster our own beleifs .

My point was that this 'materialist' interpretation popular on RF is not at all indicative of the whole world of Buddhism.

this point I would have to agree with , ....

if we return to the subject in hand , the soul ?...what I think some of us are saying is that there is something more than Gross Mind , there is something more subtle that carries imprints from one life to the next , ...or that lay at the core of our being , ...
when the Buddha refered to himself he used the word Tathagata , .....one 'thus gone' or one 'thus arrived' , ....this is 'gone' from the world of illusion and 'arrived' at a state of all knowledge , .....one who is beyond suffering , beyond attatchment , ......but still there is some esential being experiencing these states , ..... something which trancends .

much of the Buddhist world beleives that this subtle portion of our being resides either here traped in the human realm or that it trancends to a higer state of knowledge and resides in an unembodied realm , ....

who are we in the west to say that our wish to beleive in extinction at the point of death is superior to the beleif of countless millions of indigenous Buddhist peoples ...?
and who are we to subvert an entire culture to suit our own pre existing ideas ...?

 

[psychoslice]

Did the so called Buddha ever said anything about the so called soul ?.

 

[wizanda]

Did the so called Buddha ever said anything about the so called soul ?.

Again this is where the topic got complex...

In Sanskrit the word atman mean self, soul and life, thus Buddha rejected the idea of us all having a self, and helped created an anatman belief...

Which means no self, yet unfortunately it doesn't also mean no life or soul, which is what has happened in the understanding.

Buddha is rejecting the identification of the egoic (I) soul, and us having some form of continued form...

Instead he refer to us becoming beyond form, going beyond the need of attachment to our self.

When the heart is often used in Buddhist texts, it could easily be changed for the word soul, and make much better contextual sense.

Yet due to the language issues, this has been confused, which is why I've made the thread to explain.

 

[rocala]

I have followed, enjoyed and learned from this discussion. In the short time since I decided to follow a Buddhist path I freely admit that I have at times struggled with the issues raised. I cannot say that there is no epiphany moment waiting in the future to redirect me completely, but for now I will, with an open mind, follow what I have chosen by (hopefully) rational thought. That is the very best I can do.

If when I do depart this life, I find that I do have a soul, well I do not think I will have trodden on too many toes to have reached that point, so I am not that worried.

 

[psychoslice]

Again this is where the topic got complex...

In Sanskrit the word atman mean self, soul and life, thus Buddha rejected the idea of us all having a self, and helped created an anatman belief...

Which means no self, yet unfortunately it doesn't also mean no life or soul, which is what has happened in the understanding.

Buddha is rejecting the identification of the egoic (I) soul, and us having some form of continued form...

Instead he refer to us becoming beyond form, going beyond the need of attachment to our self.

When the heart is often used in Buddhist texts, it could easily be changed for the word soul, and make much better contextual sense.

Yet due to the language issues, this has been confused, which is why I've made the thread to explain.

I see, thank you, I think i'll just stay with my own idea of a soul, which is One Soul, that we are all One within, which is the Source of all there is, I don't believe that we all have one little soul each, that would be duality.

 

[George-ananda]

I see, thank you, I think i'll just stay with my own idea of a soul, which is One Soul, that we are all One within, which is the Source of all there is, I don't believe that we all have one little soul each, that would be duality.

How about a temporary soul (i.e. subtle body') that lasts for multiple lives until we find the Oneness?

 

[psychoslice]

How about a temporary soul (i.e. subtle body') that lasts for multiple lives until we find the Oneness?

Na, we are already the Oneness, its just our ignorance that makes us believe we are separate.

 

[George-ananda]

Na, we are already the Oneness, its just our ignorance that makes us believe we are separate.

Yes, that is the same as I think. But not many overcome the ignorance in one lifetime!! The subtle body lets us continue our striving and not lose our gains completely!

 

[psychoslice]

Yes, that is the same as I think. But not many overcome the ignorance in one lifetime!! The subtle body lets us continue our striving and not lose our gains completely!

Yes I agree, and really it doesn't matter if we stay ignorant throughout our life as a mind body organism, when the body dies, we are what we truly are, no heaven, no hell, just the way we are.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes I agree, and really it doesn't matter if we stay ignorant throughout our life as a mind body organism, when the body dies, we are what we truly are, no heaven, no hell, just the way we are.

How do you know there is no rebirth/reincarnation?

 

[psychoslice]

How do you know there is no rebirth/reincarnation?

I don't, but the experience in Consciousness reveled that we and everything else is One within this Consciousness, so to have an after life it needs to be arisen from Consciousness, so we are back where we started, believing we have a new life, when all along we haven't gone anywhere.

 

[George-ananda]

I don't, but the experience in Consciousness reveled that we and everything else is One within this Consciousness, so to have an after life it needs to be arisen from Consciousness, so we are back where we started, believing we have a new life, when all along we haven't gone anywhere.

Wow, sounds a little depressing and makes our efforts pointless perhaps.

 

[Kartari]

Hi George & Rick,

If I may...

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.

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).

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

George is correct about Tibetan Buddhism teaching reincarnation, actually. However... the thing to understand is that, like Hinduism, Buddhism is really a very broad array of schools. Tibetan Buddhism deviates from most other schools of Buddhism with respect to reincarnation. In fact, I know of no other Buddhist sect which embraces the concept.

This acceptance of reincarnation is probably due to the fact that Tibet was heavily influenced by Indian Buddhism (before it died out in India in the 12th century) and Indian culture more broadly (there are some practices in Tibetan Buddhism that are shared by some Hindus) during the formative years of Tibetan Buddhism in the 8th century CE onwards. It has been said with accuracy that Tibetan Buddhism actually most closely represents Indian Buddhism before its demise. Indeed, the Indian Buddhist monk Padmasambhava is believed to have first brought the Dhamma to Tibet in the 8th century.

Furthermore, I understand that there are differences between how reincarnation is understood in Hinduism and in Tibetan Buddhism. I am not expert enough in Tibetan Buddhism to really clarify further with expertise, but I believe reincarnation is seen as something only monks of a certain attainment are capable of consciously doing, whereas rebirth is the more general assumption. For instance, the Dalai Lama is believed to be the reincarnation of the Boddhisattva Avalokiteshvara because he's a Bodhisattva and capable of consciously reincarnating for the purpose of being the political and spiritual ruler of the nation (until China ruined the political part in 1950, at least).

 

[psychoslice]

Wow, sounds a little depressing and makes our efforts pointless perhaps.

Yep, life is life, and what we have as this mind body organism, is all we have, make the best of it, after all that's why we arise from the Source, so as to enjoy our creations, but don't get too evolved with the body, its only a vehicle , nothing more.

 

[Kartari]

Hi 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.

This does deviate from Buddhist teachings, though. The Buddha did not address metaphysical concerns like the soul, even outright refusing to speak of them when asked. Further, he did speak of the five aggregates (temporary properties like consciousness) which formed what we normally think of as "self." He also aimed to contradict the Hindu notion of Atman, a permanent and ultimate sense of Self or Soul, as well.

I have seen some of your posts in my short time on this forum. You seem like a very well-intentioned dude, and I like some of what you say. I suggest that you allow Buddhists, with education and practice in Buddhism, to speak to what Buddhism is, though. What you seem to be doing is appropriating and conglomerating whichever religious concepts you happen to like. This is fine to do. But it does come across as rather patronizing to more devoted practitioners of Buddhism when you essentially try to tell them what they should believe.

For instance, telling us that "It is ridiculous to say Buddhist don't have a soul, we all do; i know Buddha's soul from Heaven (Nirvana/Øneness)," you are suggesting that Buddhists are ridiculous to believe differently than you do about the Buddha.

Just some friendly advice. Peace.

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

This error caught my eye btw. On the contrary, there are a number of rich philosophical traditions of dharma debate within traditional Buddhism. Look them up.