Why is it correct not to believe in a soul?

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 3248
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Why is it correct not to believe in a soul?

Post by Minobu »

The concept of Atman is that it is a soul . It's inherent, it's a permanent created thing. . it cannot die it just keeps transmigrating till it gets it right so to speak and then becomes one with another inherent thing Paramatman .

For buddhist this whole concept is off , and Buddha taught of a mind that is constantly changing and empty of any inherent existence..
tkp67
Posts: 2077
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: Buddhism vs Hinduism

Post by tkp67 »

Minobu wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:44 am The concept of Atman is that it is a soul . It's inherent, it's a permanent created thing. . it cannot die it just keeps transmigrating till it gets it right so to speak and then becomes one with another inherent thing Paramatman .

For buddhist this whole concept is off , and Buddha taught of a mind that is constantly changing and empty of any inherent existence..
Dalai Lama: ...If one understands the term "soul" as a continuum of individuality from moment to moment, from lifetime to lifetime, then one can say that Buddhism also accepts a concept of soul; there is a kind of continuum of consciousness. From that point of view, the debate on whether or not there is a soul becomes strictly semantic. However, in the Buddhist doctrine of selflessness, or "no soul" theory, the understanding is that there is no eternal, unchanging, abiding, permanent self called "soul." That is what is being denied in Buddhism.
Buddhism does not deny the continuum of consciousness. Because of this, we find some Tibetan scholars, such as the Sakya master Rendawa, who accept that there is such a thing as self or soul, the "kangsak ki dak" (Tib. gang zag gi bdag). However, the same word, the "kangsak ki dak," the self, or person, or personal self, or identity, is at the same time denied by many other scholars.
We find diverse opinions, even among Buddhist scholars, as to what exactly the nature of self is, what exactly that thing or entity is that continues from one moment to the next moment, from one lifetime to the next lifetime. Some try to locate it within the aggregates, the composite of body and mind. Some explain it in terms of a designation based on the body and mind composite, and so on.... One of the divisions of [the "Mind-Only"] school maintains there is a special continuum of consciousness called alayavijnana which is the fundamental consciousness.
Healing Anger: The Power of Patience from a Buddhist Perspective

http://www.viewonbuddhism.org/dharma-qu ... stream.htm
User avatar
javier.espinoza.t
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Location: Chile

Re: Why is it correct not to believe in a soul?

Post by javier.espinoza.t »

tkp67 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:54 am
Minobu wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:44 am The concept of Atman is that it is a soul . It's inherent, it's a permanent created thing. . it cannot die it just keeps transmigrating till it gets it right so to speak and then becomes one with another inherent thing Paramatman .

For buddhist this whole concept is off , and Buddha taught of a mind that is constantly changing and empty of any inherent existence..
Dalai Lama: ...If one understands the term "soul" as a continuum of individuality from moment to moment, from lifetime to lifetime, then one can say that Buddhism also accepts a concept of soul; there is a kind of continuum of consciousness. From that point of view, the debate on whether or not there is a soul becomes strictly semantic. However, in the Buddhist doctrine of selflessness, or "no soul" theory, the understanding is that there is no eternal, unchanging, abiding, permanent self called "soul." That is what is being denied in Buddhism.
Buddhism does not deny the continuum of consciousness. Because of this, we find some Tibetan scholars, such as the Sakya master Rendawa, who accept that there is such a thing as self or soul, the "kangsak ki dak" (Tib. gang zag gi bdag). However, the same word, the "kangsak ki dak," the self, or person, or personal self, or identity, is at the same time denied by many other scholars.
We find diverse opinions, even among Buddhist scholars, as to what exactly the nature of self is, what exactly that thing or entity is that continues from one moment to the next moment, from one lifetime to the next lifetime. Some try to locate it within the aggregates, the composite of body and mind. Some explain it in terms of a designation based on the body and mind composite, and so on.... One of the divisions of [the "Mind-Only"] school maintains there is a special continuum of consciousness called alayavijnana which is the fundamental consciousness.
Healing Anger: The Power of Patience from a Buddhist Perspective
answer doesn't lie in books or philosophical treatises. scholars are of no help here.
User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: Buddhism vs Hinduism

Post by Wayfarer »

I am pleased to read that quote from the Dalai Lama. It is a realistic attitude. After all incarnations of lamas are sometimes identified because they recognise possessions from a previous life. So it makes no sense to say there is no continuity of identity.

What Buddhism denies is an unchanging entity 'set firm like a post' or 'like a solitary mountain peak' to use some expressions from the texts. Also denies an entity that exists in it own right separate from anything else.

I think the term 'empty of inherent existence' is true, but it's very hard to understand. It's really a term from Buddhist scholastic philosophy and abhidharma.

But one analogy I sometimes use is, if you have a deadly illness, and are presented with two identical bottles, one of which contains the antidote and the other a placebo which won't save you, then both of these bottles are 'empty of inherent existence'. However one of them still contains life-saving medicine, and knowing the difference makes a difference.

This doesn't mean that 'empty of inherent existence' is meaningless, but it means that it has to be understood appropriately.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
tkp67
Posts: 2077
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: Why is it correct not to believe in a soul?

Post by tkp67 »

javier.espinoza.t wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 3:37 am
tkp67 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:54 am
Minobu wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:44 am The concept of Atman is that it is a soul . It's inherent, it's a permanent created thing. . it cannot die it just keeps transmigrating till it gets it right so to speak and then becomes one with another inherent thing Paramatman .

For buddhist this whole concept is off , and Buddha taught of a mind that is constantly changing and empty of any inherent existence..
Dalai Lama: ...If one understands the term "soul" as a continuum of individuality from moment to moment, from lifetime to lifetime, then one can say that Buddhism also accepts a concept of soul; there is a kind of continuum of consciousness. From that point of view, the debate on whether or not there is a soul becomes strictly semantic. However, in the Buddhist doctrine of selflessness, or "no soul" theory, the understanding is that there is no eternal, unchanging, abiding, permanent self called "soul." That is what is being denied in Buddhism.
Buddhism does not deny the continuum of consciousness. Because of this, we find some Tibetan scholars, such as the Sakya master Rendawa, who accept that there is such a thing as self or soul, the "kangsak ki dak" (Tib. gang zag gi bdag). However, the same word, the "kangsak ki dak," the self, or person, or personal self, or identity, is at the same time denied by many other scholars.
We find diverse opinions, even among Buddhist scholars, as to what exactly the nature of self is, what exactly that thing or entity is that continues from one moment to the next moment, from one lifetime to the next lifetime. Some try to locate it within the aggregates, the composite of body and mind. Some explain it in terms of a designation based on the body and mind composite, and so on.... One of the divisions of [the "Mind-Only"] school maintains there is a special continuum of consciousness called alayavijnana which is the fundamental consciousness.
Healing Anger: The Power of Patience from a Buddhist Perspective
answer doesn't lie in books or philosophical treatises. scholars are of no help here.
The lotus sutra describes how Shakyamuni took ownership of the god realm. I believe a central theme of the lotus is he understood this dynamic succinctly.
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 8902
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Why is it correct not to believe in a soul?

Post by Ayu »

I think, this is a very fruitful discussion. In order to prevent an unnecessary comparative discussion ("Hinduism vs Buddhism) I changed the title. See the regarding part of our ToS:
COMPARATIVE RELIGION

This is not a "comparative religion site". It is a site to learn about and discuss the Buddha's teachings without animosity. While some comparative discussions may be permitted at the discretion of the Moderation Team, it will be allowed only to the extent that such reference serves to illuminate a point about Buddha Dharma.
I believe, illuminating the question "Why no soul? " is the point of this topic.
For the benefit and ease of all sentient beings. :heart:
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1663
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: Buddhism vs Hinduism

Post by seeker242 »

Tohunga wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2020 4:01 am Is there a difference between true nature buddhism and true self hinduism
Yes, true self Hinduism has some thing at the center of it, true nature Buddhism doesn't.
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
javier.espinoza.t
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Location: Chile

Re: Why is it correct not to believe in a soul?

Post by javier.espinoza.t »

tkp67 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 4:19 am
javier.espinoza.t wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 3:37 am
tkp67 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:54 am
answer doesn't lie in books or philosophical treatises. scholars are of no help here.
The lotus sutra describes how Shakyamuni took ownership of the god realm. I believe a central theme of the lotus is he understood this dynamic succinctly.
i'm trying to say that you must realize the difference, not make philosphy or history.
tkp67
Posts: 2077
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: Why is it correct not to believe in a soul?

Post by tkp67 »

javier.espinoza.t wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:17 pm
tkp67 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 4:19 am
javier.espinoza.t wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 3:37 am

answer doesn't lie in books or philosophical treatises. scholars are of no help here.
The lotus sutra describes how Shakyamuni took ownership of the god realm. I believe a central theme of the lotus is he understood this dynamic succinctly.
i'm trying to say that you must realize the difference, not make philosphy or history.
Ahh Yes absolute agree with you there. It can say it on paper but until it lies in "one's heart" it really isn't real. Hope I didn't take too much liberty there.

:anjali:
SilenceMonkey
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:54 am

Re: Why is it correct not to believe in a soul?

Post by SilenceMonkey »

Actually, buddhists do believe in a soul. (we incarnate, don't we?)

We just don't believe it is eternal (ie. unchanging), perfectly pure, existing by its own side (ie. not totally made up of parts that come and go, come and go), etc...

Whatever it is, we wouldn't dream of using that nasty word "soul" :rules:

There's something called buddha nature, which is on many accounts pure, permanent and all that... but never considered real. It's illusory.

The "why" in your question is the central topic of buddhist philosophy, esp. Yogacara and Madhyamaka.
SilenceMonkey
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:54 am

Re: Buddhism vs Hinduism

Post by SilenceMonkey »

Tohunga wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2020 4:16 am I personaly believe through experience that the true nature is empty and good, that you can become one with a spirit that enters you be it demon or god through the use of entheogens which the hindus use and which they see as the true self.
Just a thought...

Just because a spirit might enter your body, doesn't mean that spirit is your soul! If a spirit enters the body of a shaman, do they "become one" or are their two "souls" in the body, the spirit's and the shaman's? If they become one, do they separate again when the spirit leaves, or does this the shaman's soul leave with the spirit because they have become inextricable bonded as one? What about shamans who house more than one spirit in their body at a time? (I don't know if this happens, but it's an interesting question)

Also, I doubt the people you're talking about would see the spirit that enters their body as "the true self." So what, you weren't you before the spirit pops in? Or maybe it wasn't the "true" you, you've just been faking it the whole time.
Tohunga
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 5:41 am

Re: Why is it correct not to believe in a soul?

Post by Tohunga »

Im not faking it spirits have entered me through the use of canabis my thoughts what i say the things I feel/emotions are the spirits. Sadly they call themselves demons and are not good.
User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 11033
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Why is it correct not to believe in a soul?

Post by Queequeg »

Marijuana is a helluva drug.

Seriously, though, lay off the weed for a spell. That's not a good high.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta
Crazywisdom
Posts: 2325
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Why is it correct not to believe in a soul?

Post by Crazywisdom »

Tohunga wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2020 3:33 am So one (Hinduism) believes there is atman true spiritual self soul and the other buddhism believes there is no soul or spirit which one is correct and why?

[Mod note: Topic title changed in order to prevent comparative discussion.]
Buddha shows that a soul cannot be found upon examination. In reality there are many definitions of soul. It is formless? Does it have form? My Christian family think you get a young body and dance on roads paved in gold. Who designs the clothes? Do we get to meet the harp maker? It hate harp music. Can we get an electric guitar? Maybe that is just in hell. Is there like an outer ring of hell where the blues and rock legends go to drink bourbon and sing songs of betrayal?

All these questions and more are stupid AF.

Buddha is teaching us to put on our big boy pants and get real.
thepea
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2020 1:24 am

Re: Why is it correct not to believe in a soul?

Post by thepea »

It’s not important to not believe in a soul, it’s important to look within at the interaction between mind and matter and see the truth for yourself.
Then and only then will an understanding of soul come to fruition.
No answer can satisfy a question like this.
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”