Soul vs Consciousness?

If you're new to the forum or new to Buddhism, this is the best place for your questions. Responses require moderator approval before they are visible.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Soul vs Consciousness?

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:09 pm How would one argue that the subtle consciousness referred to in Vajrayana, the one experiencing the bardo state and taking rebirth, how would one argue that this isn’t just another way of asserting some concept of a soul or atman, some kind of permanent self?
What would you call something if it was continuous between lifetimes, but was capable of infinite change? Since there is nothing “changeless” about it, you would be incorrect to call it an Atman, correct? It does meet the definition.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Sentient Light
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:40 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Soul vs Consciousness?

Post by Sentient Light »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:09 pm How would one argue that the subtle consciousness referred to in Vajrayana, the one experiencing the bardo state and taking rebirth, how would one argue that this isn’t just another way of asserting some concept of a soul or atman, some kind of permanent self?
.
.
.
We call it a citta-santana to establish that it is not.

In relation to your earlier question, you seem to be conflating the idea of something being non-essential with being non-discrete, when these are two different things. I think this may in part be at the root of your delusion. Just becaues something has no essence does not mean it cannot be discrete; just because something is discrete does not mean it possesses any kind of essence.
:buddha1: Nam mô A di đà Phật :buddha1:
:bow: Nam mô Quan Thế Âm Bồ tát :bow:
:bow: Nam mô Đại Thế Chi Bồ Tát :bow:

:buddha1: Nam mô Bổn sư Thích ca mâu ni Phật :buddha1:
:bow: Nam mô Di lặc Bồ tát :bow:
:bow: Nam mô Địa tạng vương Bồ tát :bow:
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Soul vs Consciousness?

Post by Malcolm »

smcj wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:14 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:09 pm How would one argue that the subtle consciousness referred to in Vajrayana, the one experiencing the bardo state and taking rebirth, how would one argue that this isn’t just another way of asserting some concept of a soul or atman, some kind of permanent self?
What would you call something if it was continuous between lifetimes, but was capable of infinite change?
A karmic bungee cord.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Soul vs Consciousness?

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:28 pm
smcj wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:14 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:09 pm How would one argue that the subtle consciousness referred to in Vajrayana, the one experiencing the bardo state and taking rebirth, how would one argue that this isn’t just another way of asserting some concept of a soul or atman, some kind of permanent self?
What would you call something if it was continuous between lifetimes, but was capable of infinite change?
A karmic bungee cord.
Sounds about right! :twothumbsup:
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9398
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Soul vs Consciousness?

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

smcj wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:14 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:09 pm How would one argue that the subtle consciousness referred to in Vajrayana, the one experiencing the bardo state and taking rebirth, how would one argue that this isn’t just another way of asserting some concept of a soul or atman, some kind of permanent self?
What would you call something if it was continuous between lifetimes, but was capable of infinite change? Since there is nothing “changeless” about it, you would be incorrect to call it an Atman, correct? It does meet the definition.
But if you say “it” is infinitely changing, then there’s no “it”. the very fact of constant change negates anything that can be identified as an “it”
“Since there is nothing “changeless” about it, you would be incorrect to call it an Atman, correct?
Just the opposite. Atman refers to a constant essential thing, changeless in itself. A mannequin onto which different costumes are put.
.
.
.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9398
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Soul vs Consciousness?

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:31 pm Well, because even the subtle consciousness, the mind of clear light in Geluk jargon, is relative and compounded.
Ahh! That makes sense.
Thanks
.
.
.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Soul vs Consciousness?

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Just the opposite. Atman refers to a constant essential thing, changeless in itself. A mannequin onto which different costumes are put.
I think the objection Atman is the mannequin idea, at least as anything that manifests in the phenomenal world. It would be a restriction on how karma would be able to manifest. Think “Transformers” without any default identity, always having to transform without repeating the same appearance twice.

Like the previous Kalu R said, if a being incarnates as a mouse, then elephant, then bird, which of these is their true identity? The mouse? So when it’s an elephant you’d have to say it’s real identity is a mouse? And so on.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Soul vs Consciousness?

Post by tobes »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:49 am
Malcolm wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:31 pm Well, because even the subtle consciousness, the mind of clear light in Geluk jargon, is relative and compounded.
Ahh! That makes sense.
Thanks
If the mind of clear light neither arises nor ceases, and is not comprised of parts, then how can it be compounded?
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9398
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Soul vs Consciousness?

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

tobes wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:31 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:49 am
Malcolm wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:31 pm Well, because even the subtle consciousness, the mind of clear light in Geluk jargon, is relative and compounded.
Ahh! That makes sense.
Thanks
If the mind of clear light neither arises nor ceases, and is not comprised of parts, then how can it be compounded?
Oh yeah...that's a very good point.
But because, in my question, I had asked about the subtle consciousness that experiences the bardo,
perhaps Malcolm is suggesting (referring to Gelugpa teachings) that this consciousness that experiences the bardo is not
'mind of clear light neither arises nor ceases'.
If it's being by karma all over the samsaric realms, it wouldn't be very clear, would it?
.
.
.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
tingdzin
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:19 am

Re: Soul vs Consciousness?

Post by tingdzin »

"Soul" is a mental construct, the very vagueness of which has ensured its continuance. Although the modern-day Catholics may or may not define it as consciousness, this was assuredly not the case 1000 years ago. Nor is the present understanding of the word an easy match, semantically or from a historical viewpoint, with the Greek and Latin words it was supposedly derived from and equivalent to. Cross-cultural comparisons of words that have vague meanings and wildly different histories is probably a mug's game unless one wants to get very very specific about defining terms.

The Tibetan word "la" (bla) is often translated as "soul", and, nowadays, Bonpos sometimes substitute namshe for it, but it was sufficiently different in meaning 1200 years ago for the creators of Tibetan/Sankrit translation equivalences refused to admit "la" (in the old meaning) to their lexicon at all.

Similarly, in Chinese Buddhism, the first translators used ancient Chinese concepts like hun and po (two types of "soul"), but gradually became aware that that what not what Buddhism had in mind, and weeded them out, creating new equivalences. A good book on this subject is Jungnok Park's How Buddhism acquired a Soul on its way to China>
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Soul vs Consciousness?

Post by Malcolm »

tobes wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:31 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:49 am
Malcolm wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:31 pm Well, because even the subtle consciousness, the mind of clear light in Geluk jargon, is relative and compounded.
Ahh! That makes sense.
Thanks
If the mind of clear light neither arises nor ceases, and is not comprised of parts, then how can it be compounded?
It’s momentary.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Soul vs Consciousness?

Post by Malcolm »

tingdzin wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:25 am "Soul" is a mental construct, the very vagueness of which has ensured its continuance. Although the modern-day Catholics may or may not define it as consciousness, this was assuredly not the case 1000 years ago. Nor is the present understanding of the word an easy match, semantically or from a historical viewpoint, with the Greek and Latin words it was supposedly derived from and equivalent to. Cross-cultural comparisons of words that have vague meanings and wildly different histories is probably a mug's game unless one wants to get very very specific about defining terms.

The Tibetan word "la" (bla) is often translated as "soul", and, nowadays, Bonpos sometimes substitute namshe for it, but it was sufficiently different in meaning 1200 years ago for the creators of Tibetan/Sankrit translation equivalences refused to admit "la" (in the old meaning) to their lexicon at all.
Yes, and citing your reasoning above, soul a bad translation of bla, especially under its old meaning. In modern parlance among Buddhists, it’s usually held to a be a synonym of “tshe”, longevity. And, prebuddhist usages are evident still in certain kinds of “archaic” rituals which are practiced to summon a wandering bla.
tingdzin
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:19 am

Re: Soul vs Consciousness?

Post by tingdzin »

Yes, soul is a very bad translation of bla.
Druniel
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:23 pm

Re: Soul vs Consciousness?

Post by Druniel »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 6:45 am My understanding is that each thought moment immediately gives rise to the next thought moment, like a row of dominoes, each toppling the next.
The reason why we have an experience of a continuous self, rather than a strobe-light experience of rapidly occurring but separate thoughts, it’s like frames on motion picture film that stop for 1/24 of a second but flicker by in such rapid succession so as to create the illusion of continuous movement.
.
.
.

Yes , but we are of billiard of atoms, but still we are not an illusion, I mean the fact that something exist in some certain form, does not logically support that that thing is an illusion. So what if I say you that you are the film not the frames ? Plus the frames are all separated as you say of course, actually I worked for a while in cinemas, I had films in my hands, so the film is printed and there are these frames. But our memory won't work in this way. Because no matter how fast they run these frames, they are really separated, not connected. And if wires are not connected, to jump to another example, that serve my point here, electricity stops flowing. Plus the film need an engine to move, a screen, etc. I guess is more simple us.
We are living beings, with body and soul (?) or visible components and invisibles ones, plus who knows what else. For science we are just organisms, and chemical reactions. For spiritual people we are Spirits acting in visible forms. I guess only Reflection will say something to us, directly, and not some usual second hand knowledge.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Soul vs Consciousness?

Post by Malcolm »

tobes wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:31 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:49 am
Malcolm wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:31 pm Well, because even the subtle consciousness, the mind of clear light in Geluk jargon, is relative and compounded.
Ahh! That makes sense.
Thanks
If the mind of clear light neither arises nor ceases, and is not comprised of parts, then how can it be compounded?
It’s momentary, and relative, in the geluk tradition.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9398
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Soul vs Consciousness?

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Druniel wrote: Sun Apr 19, 2020 1:33 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 6:45 am My understanding is that each thought moment immediately gives rise to the next thought moment, like a row of dominoes, each toppling the next.
The reason why we have an experience of a continuous self, rather than a strobe-light experience of rapidly occurring but separate thoughts, it’s like frames on motion picture film that stop for 1/24 of a second but flicker by in such rapid succession so as to create the illusion of continuous movement.
.
.
.

Yes , but we are of billiard of atoms, but still we are not an illusion, I mean the fact that something exist in some certain form, does not logically support that that thing is an illusion. So what if I say you that you are the film not the frames ? Plus the frames are all separated as you say of course, actually I worked for a while in cinemas, I had films in my hands, so the film is printed and there are these frames. But our memory won't work in this way. Because no matter how fast they run these frames, they are really separated, not connected. And if wires are not connected, to jump to another example, that serve my point here, electricity stops flowing. Plus the film need an engine to move, a screen, etc. I guess is more simple us.
We are living beings, with body and soul (?) or visible components and invisibles ones, plus who knows what else. For science we are just organisms, and chemical reactions. For spiritual people we are Spirits acting in visible forms. I guess only Reflection will say something to us, directly, and not some usual second hand knowledge.
It’s the “we” you refer to at the beginning of your reply that is the illusion. Not the atoms and stuff.
...except that when you take it all to the next level, all that atoms and stuff can be shown to be illusion as well.

Like a face carved into a pumpkin that may have an angry or scary or afraid expression, it’s not really a face at all. That’s what is meant by illusion.

Just as a movie is a series of still images projected in rapid succession so as to create the illusion of movement, likewise, the appearance of a continuous self is actuLly the coming together and falling apart, the arise and decay of billions of momentary events.

But the film itself is a composite, the wires are both rubber and metal, nothing “itself” exists. Every “thing” isn’t really a “thing” but is a temporary event, a brief gathering of components.

The illusion is that there is something that can be found which is an actual “me” that exists either within or outside of all these constantly changing events made of elements and so on. This “me” would be self-arisen (not relying on anything else to establish what it is) and would be unchanging, and not composed of anything other than its own essence.
This is the “me” that Buddhism refutes.
Buddhism doesn’t deny the very valid experience of “me” or the personal, mental experience of a truly existent self. Indeed, Buddha identifies that very experience as the source of suffering.

But, just as racism exists even though there’s really no such thing as “race”, but is merely based of perceptions, “me-ism” exists as the human condition based on the illusion of perceived characteristics.

...
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
rskir
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2022 8:06 pm

Re: Soul vs Consciousness?

Post by rskir »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 3:47 pm
smcj wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 3:17 pm
...to appropriate without itself being appropriated by anything else, to be the genuine owner of a certain limited section of reality (the stream of consciousness), this is to be a free and sovereign (though finite) personality, a self-conscious, spiritual substance in the language of Catholic metaphysics.
This is what I understand the Shravakayana and subsequent Mahayana doctrines reject as unaware and incorrect assumptions.

“Personality” is the current configuration of karmas that format fundamental energies, a confinement of those energies. It is not the essence of a being. Liberation is a release from than confinement and subsequent spontaneous expression of those energies as Buddha Activity.

Or so it seems to me at this point in time.
I was simply pointing out how the largest Christian denomination in the world in world defines the word "soul." Their definition lines up perfectly with the atman refuted by the Buddha.
wrong,Consciousness is only a function of the soul, as is digestion and growth
Post Reply

Return to “Discovering Mahayana Buddhism”