The "Doctrine of no self/soul"?

[DreadFish]

Hello all,
I am aware that somewhere on here is a post about "self or no self?" but I wanted to take a new start here an post my understanding of this matter. (I also couldnt find it again anyway). Though I am well aware that I am no scholar or veteran practitioner, I see nothing wrong with expressing my understanding, and id like to see other peoples opinions. whether buddhist or not (as I dont consider myself 'Buddhist', nor did the historical Buddha im sure ) Also, I mean to approach this from a non-sectarian point of view for the sake of trying to better understand the context of this topic, however important or unimportant it may be.

So! There are many articles on the internet (often written by non-buddhists) that talk about a doctrine of no soul in buddhism, but this just doesnt add up to me, and to many others im sure, and unfortunately sometimes, the internet is open to anyone who wants to put information on there, whether its correct or not. At least wikipedia has moderators and researchers lol. So, no where in the Pali Canon, does Buddha actually deny the existence of a self, rather "anatta" is usually used as an adjective to say that a certain phenomena is "not self." This is not my own research mind you, I have yet to actually read the Pali Canon straight through, but I have found a couple of well written articles that include text and a proper analyzation. So, my understanding is that "emptiness" or "shunyata" refers to phenomena being empty of a self existent independent self. Thus a table is not a table by itself, rather it is made a table by the minds conception of what a table is. So, if we apply emptiness to self then what do we find? There is no way to conceptualize "me" or "I" without an "other," though there is alot more you can say to elaborate on it, that very simply explains that there is no self existent self, because our "self" relies on an "other" to identify as a "self."

Now to address impermanency; so very simply we see that a self has to have another to be conceptualized as a self, so the self is empty of inherent existence, but that doesnt mean that im trying to dodge the statement that all things are also impermanent and subject to change. The so-called "self" that exists in relation to others, changes as its aggregates change. So what of when the mental continuum leaves the body after the bodies death? (if you believe in reincarnation.) If it goes to another body, its type of consciousness and form changes with what kind of existence its incarnates. So its not unchanging, it is in a state of flux like everything else.

So anyway, in my own messy way, this is a basic outline of my idea of it, theres more I can say, but Im not in a mental state to proper present it right now lol. Id love to discuss this with others, especially those with a more direct and proper understanding of this, because I think a good understanding of it is sometimes out of reach for a person without a proper teacher.

Also I am aware that the idea of "anatta/anatman" is different depending on the school, I approach it from a Mahayana leaning direction as that is what I have learned from the most. Regardless, the Pali Canon is the oldest reference to Buddhas teachings so I think its important to take it into consideration of course.

I hope this finds you all well, and I hope to have your replies

EDIT: Also here are a couple well written articles (In my humble opinon lol) on the subject:

http://www.buddhism-guide.com/buddhism/anatta.htm

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself.html

 

[LuisDantas]

This is a difficult subject, but I don't see anything particularly controversial on what you have written so far.

My personal understanding is that the Anatta doctrine does not claim that there is no self, but instead that it lacks substance and is defined by whatever exact mix of aggregates one has at any given moment. The self is real, yet at the same time somewhat of an illusion, much like an optical illusion.

 

[DreadFish]

The self is real, yet at the same time somewhat of an illusion, much like an optical illusion.

Perhaps its our understanding that is illusory? That is my understanding of "illusion," from a certain point of view, nothing doesnt exist, but there us an ultimate truth to the reality of a certain thing, and it could be called an illusion if you have an idea of something that doesnt match up with the things actual nature.

 

[Engyo]

All of the people criticising this Buddhist doctrine always leave out one little part: "permanently existing" . It's not "never a self or a soul", it's "no eternal, permanently existing self or soul".

 

[Breathe]

All of the people criticising this Buddhist doctrine always leave out one little part: "permanently existing" . It's not "never a self or a soul", it's "no eternal, permanently existing self or soul".

Would you kindly elaborate on this, please?

 

[Engyo]

Well, Buddhism gets criticized for being nihilistic all the time, because "they believe there is no soul". Self, soul, and whatever else, Buddhism says these are empty; meaning that they do not permanently exist, rather being subject to causes and conditions (dependent origination).

My point is that Buddhism does not completely and absolutely negate the concepts of self or soul, it just clarifies the fact that self or soul are impermanent constructs subject to causes and conditions, as is everything else too.

 

[YmirGF]

It's not "never a self or a soul", it's "no eternal, permanently existing self or soul".

And that is the very concept I am very quickly moving away from.

In my own experience, it certainly seemed valid at one point and perhaps, in that sense, it WAS valid, given the understanding required to conceive it. Fortunately, awareness does not stop there.

The only proviso I will currently allow for, at this point in my experience, is that the experience of and concept of self will forever expand because there is no "final" state whatsoever.

 

[Atreylen]

exactly, everything is in a constant state of change, no final state

 

[zenzero]

Friend Ymir & Atreylen,

What more is left when there is no one, no self and no soul etc.
Nothingness cannot be expanded unless it is lurking in some corner of the mind's imagination and then the mind is still existing.

Love & rgds

 

[YmirGF]

Friend Ymir & Atreylen,

What more is left when there is no one, no self and no soul etc.
Nothingness cannot be expanded unless it is lurking in some corner of the mind's imagination and then the mind is still existing.

Love & rgds

I'll come back to you in few eons and see how you feel. I am eternal, so it's not like time is a luxury I cannot afford.

 

[DreadFish]

So after a combination of obsessive thinking coupled with proper contemplation I have think I have settled in the essence of this.

Well, first of all, we have an improper use of terms here; atman is often translated as soul or self, but I think atman carries a different connotation than the concept of soul or self does to most people. Atman refers to an unchanging permanent completely separate self. Personally 'self' to me is the awareness that I have which relates to the body and mind, though the bdy and mind is NOT the self, (anatta). So, as Buddha never actualy denied a self, in fact he sided neither with the eternalist view of atman, or the nihilist view of no soul at all, but rather remained silent. And of course, no soul means nihilism, and Buddha straightly denied being a nihilist. So, as anatta is used as an adjective to describe things not being permanent unchanging and separate, and it was never used as an ultimate asserted truth about existence, rather a method of understanding phenomenon, I have come to a balancing ground I think.
Of course we have some type of thing we relate to, none of it is fixed, but we will always exist in some way shape or form (theres impermanence) and so to cling to a certain part of us is to cling to something that is impermanent, thus causing discontentment and to the more extreme, suffering (dukka) so if we realize that these things are not atman (eternal, unchanging and fixed separately, thus 'anatta' and 'emptiness' of self described by Nagarjuna) then we are free from our wrong views.
Of course we never die, death is an illusion that refers to when the body no longer sustains itself and life leaves it, we thus take another form, and have a different type of thing to relate to as our 'self'. But never will we simply cease existing or being aware in some way shape or form, that would be nihilism, and from my point of view (and this may have a relative stance in science) nothing that exists, can cease existing, and nothing that doesnt exist can come into existence, (existence in a relative conceptual nature, I dont mean to be final about it) so we will always be aware in some way or another. But we are told how precious it is to have a human birth, and that us true, to take the form of a human while still in physical existence means that we have a very good chance of understanding the nature of things. Of course, my understanding of samsara is us clinging to that which we shouldnt cling, and also being bound by negative karma which created as a result of wrong view, thus, when we are no longer clinging to things of the the physical nature, and we have no more negative karma that we have to purify or exhaust, there is nothing left to keep us in this conceptual 'samsara'.
Also, being that Buddha teaches the 'middle way' it makes much more sense that he didnt distinguesh or take sides between no self, and eternal unchanging atman, to do so would mean conceptualization and would miss the point entirely. So once we find our balance in this change and we understand the nature of our changing "self" we know that it is not in totality and ultimately our "self" because "self" is simply what we relate our own awareness and consciousness to, which is something that changes, then we can be comfortable with change, and "anatta" or emptiness of "self".

In the one documented time when Buddha was asked if there was a self or not a self, he stayed silent. But if we apply a different translation to "atman" than "Self" then it makes more sense; Buddha was asked if there was an eternal, unchanging separate self existent self. To affirm would convey that he had the eternalist view, which he did not hold, and to deny would convey that he had the nihilist view, which he did not. Had this wanderer who asked this question had a better understanding, Buddha might have elaborated on the subject.

There, thats what ive got right now, I apologize for all the words . I also took some inspiration from contemplating Edgar Cayce's description of 'soul spirit and God' stuff and also Jainism, which is very similar to Buddhism.

I think its very important, when teaching this kind of thing to people who dont have a proper understanding of the meaning of the terms used in Buddha's time, to clarify this so that they wont have a wrong view as to the meaning of these things, which would ultimately just cause anxiety (dukka) or give someone the wrong understanding about what Buddhism teaches (and even about life.) Its crazy how important it is, when trying to understand teachings, to have the proper understanding of the terms used.

I hope this helps everyone who needs it, and helps clarify everything that needs clarifying. If anyone has any opinions or corrections, definitely go for it.

Peace.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why would lack of (belief in) a soul imply nihilism?

I understand nihilism as a psychological tendency towards destructive acts. Lack of a soul has no clear relation to that.

 

[DreadFish]

Why would lack of (belief in) a soul imply nihilism?

I understand nihilism as a psychological tendency towards destructive acts. Lack of a soul has no clear relation to that.

Apparently thats what was considered nihilism at that time, otherwise I guess it is called "annihilationism", I know the names dont refer to the same thing, but from what I have read, thats what nihilism referred to. Also nowadays there are different kinds of nihilism, like ethical (or moral, I dont remember) nihilism refers to the belief that there are no real morals and thus there are no bad things or unethical things you can do.

Heres a Wiki excerpt that explains it well

"Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life[1] is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism can also take epistemological, metaphysical or ontological forms, meaning respectively that in some aspect knowledge is not possible or that contrary to our belief, some aspect of reality does not exist as such."​

So there ya go.

Peace

 

[YmirGF]

So after a combination of obsessive thinking coupled with proper contemplation I have think I have settled in the essence of this.

And nicely done too, I might add. At least you are thinking...

Well, first of all, we have an improper use of terms here; atman is often translated as soul or self, but I think atman carries a different connotation than the concept of soul or self does to most people. Atman refers to an unchanging permanent completely separate self.

Agreed and that is why I never use the term "atman" and have disdain for the term "soul" due to the specious baggage associated with those terms. I much prefer entity or personality energy essence.

Personally 'self' to me is the awareness that I have which relates to the body and mind, though the bdy and mind is NOT the self, (anatta).

I disagree as that is not how I define the self. The self is all these things combined. All are aspects of the whole and that whole is FAR from being unchanging. It is a process of discovery that has no end and one is limited only by their self-imposed limitations. To me, it makes little sense to say that the mind and body are not the self. This minimizes their inherent contributions to the whole. You could say that they are manifestations OF that whole, literally meant to "flesh out" the Whole in limited physicsl terms, in a particular time and space.

So, as Buddha never actualy denied a self, in fact he sided neither with the eternalist view of atman, or the nihilist view of no soul at all, but rather remained silent. And of course, no soul means nihilism, and Buddha straightly denied being a nihilist. So, as anatta is used as an adjective to describe things not being permanent unchanging and separate, and it was never used as an ultimate asserted truth about existence, rather a method of understanding phenomenon, I have come to a balancing ground I think.

My guess is that he simply didn't want to become encumbered in erroneous existing concepts. Why bother trying to make sense out of specious reasoning? The wise man would just sit and smile rather than try to reign in the wild horses of assertion.

Of course we have some type of thing we relate to, none of it is fixed, but we will always exist in some way shape or form (theres impermanence) and so to cling to a certain part of us is to cling to something that is impermanent, thus causing discontentment and to the more extreme, suffering (dukka).

I do tend to still agree that it is our fixation on rigid constructs that precipitates much of our suffering. My baseline is that nothing, including nothing, is unchanging. The concept of anything being "unchanging" is the error. Projecting such a quality onto an asserted part of being simply furthers the chagrin, as it were. Short term gain for long term pain.

so if we realize that these things are not atman (eternal, unchanging and fixed separately, thus 'anatta' and 'emptiness' of self described by Nagarjuna) then we are free from our wrong views.

Unless, of course, it is the very concepts of "changlessness" that are in error. I liken it to a spinning top. A spinning top only appears to our sight to be uniform because it is moving too fast for us to see that it is anything but uniform. Reality blurs because it occurs beyond the range of our senses, both inner and outer. Being aware of this does help as one realizes that things are never the way they may seem - at first.

Of course we never die, death is an illusion that refers to when the body no longer sustains itself and life leaves it, we thus take another form, and have a different type of thing to relate to as our 'self'.

This is more or less what I am meaning. Self-image is never fixed and beyond change. Perfection, in those terms is the illusion, as nothing is free from change. Not because change is needed, but rather because everything is inherently energy and energy is action not entropy.

But never will we simply cease existing or being aware in some way shape or form, that would be nihilism, and from my point of view (and this may have a relative stance in science) nothing that exists, can cease existing, and nothing that doesnt exist can come into existence, (existence in a relative conceptual nature, I dont mean to be final about it) so we will always be aware in some way or another.

Precisely and that is why I have come down on the "no self/not self" concept as being one that is erroneous. My stance is that radical transformations of ones concepts of self WILL occur, to such an extent they they be seem utterly alien to current conceptions. In that sense and in that sense only one could say that "not self" is certainly not the self that people humbly imagine themselves to be. My thinking is that once one has awareness it is not something that can be negated no matter how vigorously some may try to annihilate their concept of self and retreat into a homogeneous psychic mind meld of their own creation. Trust me, been There, done that... burnt the T-shirt.

My guess is that many do not really understand the implications between the exultant realization of "I am" when one is within the void. It's pretty much a show stopper. You have my assurance on that.

But we are told how precious it is to have a human birth, and that us true, to take the form of a human while still in physical existence means that we have a very good chance of understanding the nature of things. Of course, my understanding of samsara is us clinging to that which we shouldnt cling, and also being bound by negative karma which created as a result of wrong view, thus, when we are no longer clinging to things of the the physical nature, and we have no more negative karma that we have to purify or exhaust, there is nothing left to keep us in this conceptual 'samsara'.

Well, I have also tossed karma onto the scrapheap of relatively useless ideas, especially given it's common interpretation. Negative and positive are simply value judgments projected onto reality. My best guess is that you are trying to make sense whilst hambstringing your thinking with erroneous ideas. Toss out the flawed concepts and I think you have the ability to make much progress.

Also, being that Buddha teaches the 'middle way' it makes much more sense that he didnt distinguesh or take sides between no self, and eternal unchanging atman, to do so would mean conceptualization and would miss the point entirely.

In a sense, yes. Again, my guess is that he just didn't want to get into the knit-picky details of flawed thinking further muddying the waters.

So once we find our balance in this change and we understand the nature of our changing "self" we know that it is not in totality and ultimately our "self" because "self" is simply what we relate our own awareness and consciousness to, which is something that changes, then we can be comfortable with change, and "anatta" or emptiness of "self".

Hehe. Okie dokie, Pokie. Personally, I have a little too much depth to describe it as "emptiness", but I do recognize that we are all different. Whatever works, eh?

In the one documented time when Buddha was asked if there was a self or not a self, he stayed silent. But if we apply a different translation to "atman" than "Self" then it makes more sense; Buddha was asked if there was an eternal, unchanging separate self existent self. To affirm would convey that he had the eternalist view, which he did not hold, and to deny would convey that he had the nihilist view, which he did not. Had this wanderer who asked this question had a better understanding, Buddha might have elaborated on the subject.

I am more inclined to think that he simply wasn't going to get drawn into a cul-de-sac of thought, from which he could not easily escape without sounding foolish.

There, thats what ive got right now, I apologize for all the words . I also took some inspiration from contemplating Edgar Cayce's description of 'soul spirit and God' stuff and also Jainism, which is very similar to Buddhism.

It shows. You do make effective use of dead end thinking however. There is much hope.

I think its very important, when teaching this kind of thing to people who dont have a proper understanding of the meaning of the terms used in Buddha's time, to clarify this so that they wont have a wrong view as to the meaning of these things, which would ultimately just cause anxiety (dukka) or give someone the wrong understanding about what Buddhism teaches (and even about life.) Its crazy how important it is, when trying to understand teachings, to have the proper understanding of the terms used.

I hope this helps everyone who needs it, and helps clarify everything that needs clarifying. If anyone has any opinions or corrections, definitely go for it.

Peace.

Well, I hope you take my thoughts to heart, as well. As one who has been steeped in these concepts and since left them behind, I tend to think my opinions hold some significance. But... I could be fooling myself. It is so hard to tell when I am being serious, after all.

 

[Engyo]

Why would lack of (belief in) a soul imply nihilism?

I understand nihilism as a psychological tendency towards destructive acts. Lack of a soul has no clear relation to that.

I don't particularly understand it myself, but it seems a popular criticism for those from Abrahamic faiths to make about Buddhism.

 

[DreadFish]

Agreed and that is why I never use the term "atman" and have disdain for the term "soul" due to the specious baggage associated with those terms. I much prefer entity or personality energy essence.

Yes I think I would prefer those 'definitions' as it were, too.

I disagree as that is not how I define the self. The self is all these things combined. All are aspects of the whole and that whole is FAR from being unchanging. It is a process of discovery that has no end and one is limited only by their self-imposed limitations. To me, it makes little sense to say that the mind and body are not the self. This minimizes their inherent contributions to the whole. You could say that they are manifestations OF that whole, literally meant to "flesh out" the Whole in limited physicsl terms, in a particular time and space.

I like what you say. And yeah I meant to say that "mind and body arent 'atman'" meaning that they arent fixed and self existent, but I agree with you.

My guess is that he simply didn't want to become encumbered in erroneous existing concepts. Why bother trying to make sense out of specious reasoning? The wise man would just sit and smile rather than try to reign in the wild horses of assertion.

That makes sense, after all, we are trying to avoid too much conceptualization about reality since it is beyond reason right?

I do tend to still agree that it is our fixation on rigid constructs that precipitates much of our suffering. My baseline is that nothing, including nothing, is unchanging. The concept of anything being "unchanging" is the error. Projecting such a quality onto an asserted part of being simply furthers the chagrin, as it were. Short term gain for long term pain.

Yeah, and as I have read, non-attachment includes non-attachment to teachings as well.

This is more or less what I am meaning. Self-image is never fixed and beyond change. Perfection, in those terms is the illusion, as nothing is free from change. Not because change is needed, but rather because everything is inherently energy and energy is action not entropy.

Agreed

Precisely and that is why I have come down on the "no self/not self" concept as being one that is erroneous. My stance is that radical transformations of ones concepts of self WILL occur, to such an extent they they be seem utterly alien to current conceptions. In that sense and in that sense only one could say that "not self" is certainly not the self that people humbly imagine themselves to be. My thinking is that once one has awareness it is not something that can be negated no matter how vigorously some may try to annihilate their concept of self and retreat into a homogeneous psychic mind meld of their own creation. Trust me, been There, done that... burnt the T-shirt.

That makes sense to me. And I agree that it isnt effective to actually try to negate self, I think it may be more effective to simply transcend our fixed conceptions, and as a result the previous concept of self disappears on its own.

My guess is that many do not really understand the implications between the exultant realization of "I am" when one is within the void. It's pretty much a show stopper. You have my assurance on that.

Im not totally sure what you mean here, but im interested.

Well, I have also tossed karma onto the scrapheap of relatively useless ideas, especially given it's common interpretation. Negative and positive are simply value judgments projected onto reality. My best guess is that you are trying to make sense whilst hambstringing your thinking with erroneous ideas. Toss out the flawed concepts and I think you have the ability to make much progress.

Yeah I agree on the negative positive thing, I just used the wrong term I guess. I remember reading a thing about that; say a man misses his plane, is it his negative karma? But he later finds out that the plane crashed, so it was positive karma instead? He then finds out that the plane crashed on his house, so now the karma is 'negative' again lol. So yes, I agree, that was a wrong use of the term on my part.

In a sense, yes. Again, my guess is that he just didn't want to get into the knit-picky details of flawed thinking further muddying the waters.

Also agreed, thats why I like zen, with avoiding these kind of things.

Hehe. Okie dokie, Pokie. Personally, I have a little too much depth to describe it as "emptiness", but I do recognize that we are all different. Whatever works, eh?

Yeah, im just using the term as it is used in in this context regularly, but I guess it is just a term anyways right?

It shows. You do make effective use of dead end thinking however. There is much hope.

I am a beginner afterall lol. Im just using what im aware of as of yet, and I very much appreciate your insight. Its good to have someone who actually knows from experience to talk to, rather than reading articles and stuff.

Well, I hope you take my thoughts to heart, as well. As one who has been steeped in these concepts and since left them behind, I tend to think my opinions hold some significance]. But... I could be fooling myself. It is so hard to tell when I am being serious, after all.

I definitely will take your thoughts to heart, as I said, its great to have anothers insight on this, I dont have many good resources or people to talk to about it, so it helps me alot.

Thank you very much for your insight

 

[zenzero]

Friend Ymir,

I'll come back to you in few eons and see how you feel. I am eternal, so it's not like time is a luxury I cannot afford.

Personally have no idea who will come when? [even in a few eons] as that is also time besides am yet to understand whom you are going to meet as personally am part of that whole which is never born or never died.
Best wishes to your meeting [whom so ever it maybe]

Love & rgds

 

[YmirGF]

Friend Ymir,


Personally have no idea who will come when? [even in a few eons] as that is also time besides am yet to understand whom you are going to meet as personally am part of that whole which is never born or never died.
Best wishes to your meeting [whom so ever it maybe]

Love & rgds

So, from this, I assume that you have nothing from this current life you wish to add to the whole? What a pity. You seem interesting enough. My friend, I think you sell yourself short.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Ymir,

There are neither any sellers nor buyers.
Even to quote the following appears heavy as there is nothing as * enlightenment*.
However this 10th from 10 bulls of zen is the closest.

Inside my gate, a thousand sages do not know me. The beauty of my garden is invisible. Why should one search for the footprints of the patriarchs? I go to the market place with my wine bottle and return home with my staff. I visit the wineshop and the market, and everyone I look upon becomes enlightened.

However, if *YOU* are into *SELLING* am sure will find a vast market for your wares like Deepak Chopra, Robin Sharma etc. Wish you all the best and ever given the opportunity for free consultancy on marketing having over 35 years of experience in the marketing field will be honored to be of service to stalwarts like you.

Love & rgds

 

[YmirGF]

Friend Ymir,

There are neither any sellers nor buyers.
Even to quote the following appears heavy as there is nothing as * enlightenment*.
However this 10th from 10 bulls of zen is the closest.

However, if *YOU* are into *SELLING* am sure will find a vast market for your wares like Deepak Chopra, Robin Sharma etc. Wish you all the best and ever given the opportunity for free consultancy on marketing having over 35 years of experience in the marketing field will be honored to be of service to stalwarts like you.

Love & rgds

None of this responds to my point though, Zenzero. Surely there is something worthy in Zenzero that the Whole could benefit from or do you imagine the whole to be complete already... or do you think the point of existence is to fade into the background radiation?