Do We Need a Better Definitive Words For Soul Vs Self?

[wizanda]

Within multiple cultures, we used a terminology for soul, self, our life, that comes from the root of breath, Atman (Sanskrit), Nephesh (Hebrew), Psyche (Greek)... Please add anymore cultures you're aware of to this list.

Though because of this we've identified the soul, as being the self; thus we've then had Buddhism, and other religious authors remove the self (Anatman).

Yeshua says to hate our psyche, not to save our psyche, not to love our psyche...

Which clearly is all just a mess of presenting a clear understanding.

Some Buddhist believe they're soulless, as Buddha didn't give a definitive answer...

Clearly we all have a soul in this physical body, we have some form of self identification, which can be interlinked with our ego.

When we're dead, we still have a sense of self, even when in Heaven.

@Eliab ben Benjamin Could you please help share what you remember from your NDE as well, and anyone else who has had first hand experience of Heaven, please share, as we could do with finding a definitive answer between us.

The sense of self is stronger in Hell though; which makes me question how much it has been linked to our ego through life.

Heaven is Oneness, like we still have a sense of self; yet our focus is all about the source, thus we're one with the consciousness of all.

Within us understanding this better, we can help people on the road to enlightenment; as we've all got a soul, which is like a dynamic spark of energy, a flow, a musical melody, a tapestry of colours, etc.

Our sense of self isn't from God/Brahman having a self, as it has no self; we can say it is the only self existing being in reality; yet it doesn't have self orientated thinking, it is completely selfless, else it would make more point of being seen and understood.

Our self isn't a bad thing, though we find many selfish, self orientated people in Hell; it is due to not recognizing that life is here to learn Oneness, and thus being selfless.

Think self is our souls identification process, we recognize our soul as we have a sense of self....

Then we can recognize our soul as having a sense of selflessness...

In other words to put it into binary we see our sense of self as 1, without a self as 0; yet both are an identification of existing in someway.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

[QUOTE="wizanda, post: 4812361, member: 1032"

@Eliab ben Benjamin Could you please help share what you remember from your NDE as well, and anyone else who has had first hand experience of Heaven, please share, as we could do with finding a definitive answer between us.

[/QUOTE]

Gosh, may take several pages to list all i remember .... so a few points perhaps as a start...
The trip took place through what seemed a tunnel of black boiling clouds ... towards a bright light that grew
sides of the tunnel felt ominous and as if i was being beckoned to leave through the sides ...
I arrived in what seemed an explosion of glorious light, peaceful, loving and welcoming, to be met
by an entity i call the gatekeeper ....
The place was a comfortable room size but no corners, perhaps like a room within a white eggshell .
After the life review, where i relived my life's events, both good and bad ... the balance seemed positive
as i was overwhelmed with love and welcome ...
The room seemed to expand into a hall where i was led to my grandfather ...
he informed me my grandmother was 'coming soon' which surprised me as she traveled annually
from Manchester UK, to New Zealand and then Miami .... he said she had Bowel cancer ...
She was diagnosed 3 months after i returned and passed on at 6 months.

The Gatekeeper then came and informed me i must return, i wanted to argue and stay.
was propelled to the entrance when all became black and i lay in my coma in hospital ...

 

[Lyndon]

Fascinating. Eliab.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Some Buddhist believe they're soulless, as Buddha didn't give a definitive answer...

I can assure you that he did. Anatta is a central doctrine in Buddhist teaching, and is perhaps the main doctrinal difference with Hinduism which teaches Atman

Clearly we all have a soul in this physical body, we have some form of self identification, which can be interlinked with our ego.

That is not clear at all. "Soul" is a religious belief, and "ego" is a psychological term. There is no objective basis for linking these two things.

 

[wizanda]

Gosh, may take several pages to list all i remember

OK a couple of specific questions to narrow it down...

• Did you have a sense of self within the experience?
  Any details about this aspect are helpful.
  
  
• Did you have a sense of ego?
  
  
• Did you have a soul?
  
  
• 

 

[Windwalker]

I can assure you that he did. Anatta is a central doctrine in Buddhist teaching, and is perhaps the main doctrinal difference with Hinduism which teaches Atman

Actually, according to some Theravadin teachers he did not teach it definitively. Thanissaro Bhikkhu stated,

"In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible."​

The doctrine of no-self can be a slippery slope which catches you creating dualities. To teach we have "no-self" includes the self. "I have no-self" is a statement of "I". All of it can be boiled down to the cognitive mind attempting to grasp reality, to define it as this or that, or not-this, or not-that, which includes any understanding of "self" or "no-self". To not engage in those questions, to move beyond the mind's attempts to comprehend it opens you to the nature of truth and reality, including self or no-self.

To me, it's in nonduality where self and no-self exist in reality unproblematically. So the question of the OP itself is still struggling with the questions.

That is not clear at all. "Soul" is a religious belief, and "ego" is a psychological term. There is no objective basis for linking these two things.

Actually, "ego" is simply the Greek word for "self". The "I" in the human goes through many forms during our development. That "I" can extend beyond just the body-self, or the self-reflexive "I" of our personalities and self-images we identify with exclusively, our current "center of gravity", as it were. That "I" can extend to the cosmos itself. The "Big I", or "Buddha Nature" can in fact be apprehended as "I", or "ego". So Ego in this sense is also a religious or metaphysical reality.

Psychology is simply using the term Freud assigned to examining the self to distinguish it from the id and superego. It is the conscious awareness of self. But as what is greater than the "small self" is brought into conscious awareness, and the center of gravity of self-identification shifts into that which has no been apprehended, that you identify as that, you are no longer that "self" you thought you were. But you still are. Ego eimi, I AM. I AM all things, I am No Thing.

All things link at some point.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Actually, according to some Theravadin teachers he did not teach it definitively. Thanissaro Bhikkhu stated:"In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible."

Thanissaro speculated about not-self as a strategy rather than a doctrine, though I can't think of any other Buddhist teachers who actually agree with this view, and the suttas do not support his interpretation. In the suttas and the Dhammapada you will find the refrain "Sabbe dhamma anatta" which means all phenomena lack self-nature, including Nibbana. This is clear and definitive.

I think the sutta Thanissaro refers to is the Ananda Sutta, which ends: ""And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'" So the Buddha's lack of a definitive answer here actually reflects compassion for poor bewildered Vacchagotta, and is not intended as a doctrinal statement.

..it's in nonduality where self and no-self exist in reality unproblematically.

In Buddhism it is self-view which ceases, as described for example in the Bahiya Sutta:

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html

And in the suttas, two of the fetters to be overcome are self-view and the conceit "I am"

 

[Lyndon]

Until you precisely define "self" you can make no statement on whether it exists or not.

 

[Windwalker]

OK a couple of specific questions to narrow it down...

This was addressed to the other member to answer questions about his NDE to relate it to your questions. I'll answer from my own experience with an NDE without sharing all the details of it here.

Did you have a sense of self within the experience?

Yes, for that initial experience. But no at another point. The initial experience was that of me "looking up" into Infinity, and Infinity "looking down" upon me. (hard to describe in words). At a different point, the nature of reality shown through all that is, in all that is, and though at first I was an observer of this, it "moved" within me and through me to all that is, and all that is to all that is. From everything, to everything, through everything. I was not different from all that is, yet I was this form, different yet same. This is nonduality. Different, and not different. The questions of self and no-self really become moot, non-questions. What "Is" is the best description.

Did you have a sense of ego?

I had a sense of separate self, yes. In the life-review part of it, I observed whole life. It was what you could call in a sense my first taste of being that "Witness", the one that sees the self. That developed considerably more many years after the fact as I started taking up meditation practice. But at the time, it was still largely me looking out of the eyes of whom I identified as then.

Did you have a soul?

That term is a tricky one. My understanding of "soul" is where we remain as a separate self, the highest self where we are still "me". I think the realization of that is tied to form. I do not believe my true nature is an eternal form as "me", or to say an eternal soul. However, Formlessness is always manifesting in form (gross, subtle and very subtle), and Formlessness and Form are in this sense Eternal. Form changes. Form is Dynamic. But Formlessness is not separate from form or what is manifest. (This is the actual doctrine of the Trinity, BTW). I am not separate from God, and God is not separate from all that is.

So where is the "soul" in all this? What was my experience of this? "I and my Father are One". Think in terms of incarnation. When you realize that as yourself, the question is no longer relevant. There is not a separate self, yet God is always manifesting in form which is distinct and unique. From the One to the Many, and the Many to the One. Atman and Anatman.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Actually, "ego" is simply the Greek word for "self". The "I" in the human goes through many forms during our development. That "I" can extend beyond just the body-self, or the self-reflexive "I" of our personalities and self-images we identify with exclusively, our current "center of gravity", as it were. That "I" can extend to the cosmos itself. The "Big I", or "Buddha Nature" can in fact be apprehended as "I", or "ego". So Ego in this sense is also a religious or metaphysical reality.

Sorry, but this is just too woolly, and ego has a specific meaning in psychology. False equivalences do not help to make things clear.

 

[Windwalker]

Sorry, but this is just too woolly, and ego has a specific meaning in psychology.

And that understanding must be restricted to that particular view on the topic of "ego"? Then why do Buddhists talk about "getting rid of the ego"? You think the separate self is being referred to in the sense of Western psychology? Is the understanding I expressed "woolly"? I would say it's a complex topic, and complexity is what you are going to get. This is some very subtle stuff you're dealing with here, not little boxes one can tuck away on the shelf easily.

 

[Demonslayer]

Clearly we all have a soul in this physical body, we have some form of self identification,

I'm not sure anything is less clear. Being self aware is not an indication of a "soul" as something separate or "inside" your physical body, unless you're already inclined to believe in a soul. Sentience is perception and cognition. We can sense the world around us and can think about what we sense.

To me the best proof that there is no soul apart from our physical being is observation of trauma patients or victims of dementia or other brain dysfunction. Why are folks who suffer severe amnesia unable to remember their entire lives? Wouldn't their soul remember? We're supposed to believe when we get to Heaven we'll still be aware of ourselves...how can we believe this one a stroke or a swift horse kick to the head can turn us into tabula rasa? Ditto severe Alzheimer's where folks live for years completely unaware of who they are. If we have a soul, some permanent self-preserver, why do so many people live out the last years of their lives with no knowledge of their self? And what of Dissociative Identity Disorder? (multiple personality) Did an extra soul slip in there somewhere? Brain trauma can wipe out an entire life in the blink of an eye, leaving a full grown adult person with no sense of self whatsoever. Sometimes it comes back, sometimes its permanent and the person never remembers who they were.

It seems to me we are prisoners of our brain chemistry.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And that understanding must be restricted to that particular view on the topic of "ego"? Then why do Buddhists talk about "getting rid of the ego"? You think the separate self is being referred to in the sense of Western psychology? Is the understanding I expressed "woolly"? I would say it's a complex topic, and complexity is what you are going to get. This is some very subtle stuff you're dealing with here, not little boxes one can tuck away on the shelf easily.

Of course it's complex, but clarity is not served by you changing the meaning of words in an ad-hoc manner. The semantics are important in these discussions, so please don't just redefine words to fit your personal syncretic agenda. We need common ground for discussion.

 

[Windwalker]

Of course it's complex, but clarity is not served by you changing the meaning of words in an ad-hoc manner.

I wouldn't consider it ad hoc. I think deconstructing our neat little boxes of definitions and expanding them purposefully serves understanding better. Defining things narrowly is what blinds us. And that includes defining "no-self", as well as "self". In this, I agree with the approach of Nagarjuna. He would argue that to say "Emptiness" is the true reality, is itself a form of duality. Doesn't that apply to the notion that to say "No-Self" is true, to the exclusion of Self, is the same thing, creating a subtle duality? This is not nonduality, which does not say it is "this, and not that". I believe both are true and valid, even though they appear as mutually exclusive to the "not-duality" mind (which is actually dualistic).

The semantics are important in these discussions, so please don't just redefine words to fit your personal view.

I am not allowed an understanding of these things where I can take existing terms and expand them to include deeper understandings? Again, this is not ad hoc at all. It has a direction, and meaning in larger contexts. Nothing wrong with doing that. If we limit ourselves to quoting dictionaries, we're going to find ourselves in a very small world indeed.

 

[Sees]

I'm not sure anything is less clear. Being self aware is not an indication of a "soul" as something separate or "inside" your physical body, unless you're already inclined to believe in a soul. Sentience is perception and cognition. We can sense the world around us and can think about what we sense.

To me the best proof that there is no soul apart from our physical being is observation of trauma patients or victims of dementia or other brain dysfunction. Why are folks who suffer severe amnesia unable to remember their entire lives? Wouldn't their soul remember? We're supposed to believe when we get to Heaven we'll still be aware of ourselves...how can we believe this one a stroke or a swift horse kick to the head can turn us into tabula rasa? Ditto severe Alzheimer's where folks live for years completely unaware of who they are. If we have a soul, some permanent self-preserver, why do so many people live out the last years of their lives with no knowledge of their self? And what of Dissociative Identity Disorder? (multiple personality) Did an extra soul slip in there somewhere? Brain trauma can wipe out an entire life in the blink of an eye, leaving a full grown adult person with no sense of self whatsoever. Sometimes it comes back, sometimes its permanent and the person never remembers who they were.

It seems to me we are prisoners of our brain chemistry.

The brain is more or less seen as the connection hub/receiver in many traditions...if messed up you don't quite know what you will get. Brain trauma impacting consciousness really doesn't alter that.

 

[Windwalker]

To me the best proof that there is no soul apart from our physical being is observation of trauma patients or victims of dementia or other brain dysfunction. Why are folks who suffer severe amnesia unable to remember their entire lives? Wouldn't their soul remember?

This doesn't make a good argument. Those who believe in reincarnation see the soul as moving from one life to the next, and typically there is no remembrance of who they were in the previous lifetime. So no, the soul wouldn't remember.

 

[Demonslayer]

This doesn't make a good argument. Those who believe in reincarnation see the soul as moving from one life to the next, and typically there is no remembrance of who they were in the previous lifetime. So no, the soul wouldn't remember.

It makes an argument against the idea that in heaven, hell or some afterlife we remember who we are, which is what all the comments below are saying. Like when we die we still know who we are. That's what I'm refuting.

Heaven is Oneness, like we still have a sense of self;

When we're dead, we still have a sense of self, even when in Heaven.

The sense of self is stronger in Hell though;

Also, if we reincarnate and we remember our previous life, who's to say we aren't just a new "soul?" Are you brand new or have you been around 5 or 5000 times by now? There is no way of telling beside making up a story about how you were Genghis Khan in another life or something like that.

Anyway, the statement was "it's clear we have a soul" and I still maintain nothing is less clear than the existence of a "soul" apart from our physical/chemical makeup.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If we limit ourselves to quoting dictionaries, we're going to find ourselves in a very small world indeed.

If you insist on making up your own definitions for words then we have no common ground for discussion. Sorry, but I haven't got the time or energy to learn your personal language and jargon.

 

[Demonslayer]

Sorry, but I haven't got the time or energy to learn your personal language and jargon.

Fliz bothria domdi joznik to you, sir.

 

[Windwalker]

If you insist on making up your own definitions for words then we have no common ground for discussion. Sorry, but I haven't got the time or energy to learn your personal language and jargon.

Nice cop out. It's not my personal jargon. I'm using what others speak of. If you want to restrict understanding to your own, then knock yourself out. I hope that gives you what you hope for.