Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by daverupa »

socratessmith wrote:There is abundant evidence that Geoff believes in a soul-like entity. The Buddha-figure in the texts did, too. If you don't see that, it's because you don't want to.
False Dilemma fallacy. Please try again.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Anagarika
Posts: 915
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:25 pm

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by Anagarika »

Socratessmith: Contemporary American Buddhist discourse does not demand much from you intellectually. Still, I hope you will find a way to hone your thinking abilities and free yourself from the robe-wearing Bhikkhus of Oz such as Geoffrey DeGraff.
Quite a nasty personal comment from SocratesSmith. I'm glad there are people like Socrates with such higher levels of intelligence and insight roaming about; the rest of us might just bog down the study of Dhamma with our simplistic views. I will say that I've met Ven. Thanissaro, and I'm fairly sure he does not suffer from lack of intellect. He's also a strict Vinaya monk, which, Socrates, explains the robe and the bald head. Sorry you don't care for the Vinaya, but it's something the Buddha suggested as appropriate for his Bhikkhus. The same comment goes for Tom Pepper, who derides Theravada Bhikkhus for not teaching in chinos and Lacoste golf shirts. Again, it's Vinaya,and I ask that you only contemplate that while pulling through the drivethrough for your 9 pm Taco Bell burrito snack. About that time, Ajahn Geoff will be chanting the Patimokkha on an empty stomach.

I found another of Tom Pepper's articles today where he toots his horn over his days in graduate school, and the revelation that his professors there commented that he had the highest IQ of any of the graduate psychology class, and that he was just too darned brilliant to practice psychology. The comment struck me as peculiar, and having attended grad school myself, I'm unsure how, why or when a Prof might have access to an IQ score, or why it would be mentioned by a Prof....but the bigger point seems to be....why mention something like this at all? Even if this odd story were true, why on earth would one mention it unless one is somehow craving self validation? Insecure much?

Socrates, if you have an axe to grind about Ven. Thanissaro, and you and Tom Peppers feel a need to plant big wet ones on each others' metaphysical a**es, that's your prerogative. The minute you spend a week under Vinaya rules, then you can call Ven. Thanissaro Geoff. Until then, maybe you can be a bit more respectful of the man and his body of work. You don't have to agree with it, but you do need to respect it.

I'll try to make some merit this week for the negative kamma I've earned from the negativity tone of my post. Maybe not Right Speech, but I feel better writing it.
socratessmith
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:15 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by socratessmith »

Like I said, his belief in an unconditioned X--a soul-like entity-is hiding in plain sight. If you don't see it, it's because you refuse to see it. No "false dichotomy fallacy" here, bro, just the all-too-predictable Buddhist obfuscation.

BuddhaSoup: I don't "have an "axe to grind" with Geoff. But I do think it's important to call out intellectual laziness and obfuscation where I see it among Buddhists. I do not respect a person just because some institution has determined him respect worthy. Why do you?

There is no such thing as "negative kamma." You are thinking of the Christian notion of "sin." Have a little more faith in yourself, and less in Buddhism.
User avatar
Anagarika
Posts: 915
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:25 pm

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by Anagarika »

There is no such thing as "negative kamma." You are thinking of the Christian notion of "sin."
...and you can read my mind. An Arahant!

Signing off this topic. 'Nuf said for today.
socratessmith
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:15 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by socratessmith »

No, BuddhaSoup, I can read your words.
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by lyndon taylor »

You seem to have it xxx backwards, "have a little less faith in yourself, and a little more faith in Buddhism" would be my take on it, unless you value your opinion above the Buddha's, in which case I have to ask why are you here????
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by reflection »

It'll probably be much more fruitful to discuss the question "do the suttas teach a soul?" instead, or "how do we find the answer to the soul/no soul dilemma on a practical level?". That's probably better because it doesn't get personal - also considering the venerable to is not here to defend himself.

Personally I don't really care about venerable Thanissaro's view any more than the view of any other person on earth. I just hope many people find the real Dhamma and will be able to live it. And that we could all get along.

:hello:
SarathW
Posts: 21243
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by SarathW »

reflection wrote:It'll probably be much more fruitful to discuss the question "do the suttas teach a soul?" instead, or "how do we find the answer to the soul/no soul dilemma on a practical level?". That's better because it doesn't get personal - especially considering the venerable to is not here to defend himself.

Personally I don't really care about venerable Thanissaro's view any more than the view of any other person on earth. I just hope many people find the real Dhamma and will be able to live it. And that we could all get along.

:hello:
Well said. :twothumbsup:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
Anagarika
Posts: 915
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:25 pm

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by Anagarika »

Personally I don't really care about venerable Thanissaro's view any more than the view of any other person on earth.
Respectfully, my only comment is that in a world of 'Buddhist' snake oil sales, phonies and fraudsters in western Buddhism, we really need dedicated people like Ven. Thanissaro. Most of us here have a really good head on our shoulders....however, could you imagine navigating the Suttas without accesstoinsight.org? Or Bhikkhu Bodhi's masterful translations, or the interpretations of Ajahn Brahm, Ven. Gunaratana, and others? I'm profoundly thankful for the tireless scholarship that Ven. Thanissaro provides. He writes with great energy, opens the windows and doors of this difficult area of Dhamma study to us, and then gives away for free these gems he has written. I'd be adrift in a sea of texts, suffering analysis paralysis were it not for the tomes that Ajahn Geoff has made freely available.

I'll throw in a high five for Dhamma Wheel, its founder and all of the members/contributors. My knowledge (or lack thereof) of Dhamma is light years ahead were I otherwise left to struggle alone with this stuff.
SarathW
Posts: 21243
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by SarathW »

Hi BS
I agree with you. :)
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by chownah »

Thanisarro's beliefs are interesting to talk about but like some other posters here they are not central to my practice.

The assertion that Thanisarro's writings include the concept of a soul have been around for a long time and I'm pretty sure that he knows about them.....has he responded anywhere to those assertions?
chownah
User avatar
manas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by manas »

mal4mac wrote: “In his essay “No-self or Not-self?” he makes it clear that his understanding of the teaching of anatta is that there is, in fact, an eternal soul, but that nothing that is part of our time-space continuum is part of that soul, and so we must learn not to be attached to anything in this samsaric world.
Malmac,

I don't know how you draw such a conclusion, but you have clearly misunderstood what he is getting at in the essay. The teaching on anatta is subtle and can take some time to grasp. But while striving to comprehend it, do beware of putting words into the mouths of respected Dhamma teachers, because Thanissaro Bhikkhu did not and does not say what you wrote (just above). I highly recommend listening to the entire talk entitled "Anatta - 1 of 3", here is the link: http://www.audiodharma.org/teacher/16/ You might need to scroll down a little to find it.

That might set you straight regarding the question you ask in your original post.

kind regards
manas :anjali:
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by Sylvester »

To be fair to those who grumble about Ven T's "unestablished consciousness", this is what Ven T has to say about the post-Awakening consciousness that lives happily ever after -
from footnote 2 to his translation of MN 38 - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

The Pali here is, Nanu mayā moghapurisa anekapariyāyena paṭiccasamuppannaṃ viññāṇaṃ vuttaṃ, 'Aññatra paccayā n'atthi viññāṇassa sambhavoti?'

If the first part of this sentence were a complete sentence, its syntax — putting the topic of what is described in the accusative (paṭiccasamuppannaṃ viññāṇaṃ), followed by the word vuttaṃ ("described") plus the speaker in the instrumental (mayā) — could be translated in line with either of two patterns.

An example of the first pattern is in SN 12.24: Paṭiccasamuppannaṃ kho ānanda dukkhaṃ vuttaṃ mayā — "Ānanda, stress has been described by me as dependently co-arisen." In other words, the pattern is: "X has been described as Y by the speaker."

An example of the second pattern is in AN 3.74: Sekhampi kho mahānāma sīlaṃ vuttaṃ bhagavatā, asekhampi sīlaṃ vuttaṃ bhagavatā — "Mahānāma, the virtue of one in training has been described by the Blessed One, and the virtue of one beyond training has been described by the Blessed One." This pattern is: "X has been described by the speaker." Another example of this pattern is in SN 41.2: Idaṃ kho gahapati dhātu-nānattaṃ vuttaṃ bhagavatā: cakkhu-dhātu, rūpa-dhātu, cakkhu-viññāṇa-dhātu... mano-dhātu, dhamma-dhātu, mano-viññāṇa-dhātu —"Householder, this diversity of properties has been described by the Blessed One: eye-property, form property, eye-consciousness property... intellect-property, idea property, intellect-consciousness property." Again: "X has been described by the speaker."

To make a literal translation of the entire passage here in line with the first pattern would yield: "Worthless man, hasn't consciousness been described as dependently co-arisen by me in many ways (that), 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'?"

To make a literal translation in line with the second pattern would yield: "Worthless man, hasn't dependently co-arisen consciousness been described by me in many ways (that), 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'?"

The translator of MLS renders the sentence both ways. When it earlier appears in the mouths of the monks reprimanding Sāti, she renders it in line with the first pattern: "For, reverend Sāti, in many a figure is conditioned genesis spoken of in connection with consciousness by the Lord, saying: 'Apart from condition there is no origination of consciousness.'" When the sentence appears in the Buddha's mouth, she renders it in line with the second pattern: "Foolish man, has not consciousness generated by conditions been spoken of in many a figure by me, saying: Apart from condition there is no origination of consciousness?"

The translators of MLDB consistently follow the first pattern in rendering this sentence: "Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness to be dependently arisen since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness?" (It might be noted that this rendering inserts a "since" where there is none in the Pali, and ignores the quotation marks (ti) around the sentence beginning, "Apart from" or "without." More on this below.)

The substantive difference in these two patterns is that the first could be taken as implying that all consciousness is dependently co-arisen, whereas the second states explicitly that the Buddha's words, "Apart from condition there is no origination of consciousness," apply specifically to one type of consciousness — consciousness arising in dependence on the co-arising of conditions — leaving open the possibility that there is another type of consciousness to which these words do not apply.

Arguing from translations rendered in line with the first pattern, people have asserted that the two passages in the Canon (in DN 11 and MN 49) referring to consciousness without surface are not in keeping with the principle, expressed here, that all consciousness is dependently co-arisen. Thus, the argument continues, those two passages cannot be accepted as coming genuinely from the Buddha, whereas this passage in MN 38 definitely can.

There are three main problems with this argument. The first is that, throughout the suttas, when consciousness as an active agent is discussed without modifiers, it is always with reference to the consciousness aggregate, as that is the sort of consciousness occurring within the territory delimited by the way the Buddha explicitly defines the term, "all" (see SN 35.23). That is clearly the topic of discussion here. Consciousness without surface (see note 1) is discussed explicitly only in passages where the Buddha is citing the superiority of his attainment over that of brahmas: In knowing this sort of consciousness, which performs no active role and lies outside of the term "all" (MN 49), he knows something that brahmas do not. At the same time, to lie outside of the consciousness aggregate, it would also have to lie outside of the dimensions of time and space, as that aggregate is defined as covering all consciousness "past, future, and present... far and near" (SN 22.59). Because the consciousness discussed in this sutta is an active agent, functions within the dimensions of time and space, and definitely lies within the term "all," all references can be understood to apply solely to the consciousness aggregate. What this means is that even if we were to follow the first pattern in translating this sentence — if it were a sentence — we would not have to adopt the argument drawn from it; the people advancing this argument force the passage to say more than it actually says when taken in the context of the suttas as a whole.

Second, it is a poor interpretative strategy to give unnecessary privilege to one passage of the Canon at the expense of two others when we have no way of proving which passages in the suttas are most authentic. This is especially true in light of the fact that the passage here — even if we took it as a complete sentence — would not demand a single, unequivocal interpretation. To force such an interpretation on it, knowing that that would discredit other passages as inauthentic, is unfair to the texts.

The third problem with the argument for using this passage to reject DN 11 and MN 49, however, is the most telling: The first part of the above sentence is not a complete sentence. It is followed by a passage in quotation marks: 'Aññatra paccayā n'atthi viññāṇassa sambhavoti?' The only way to make sense of this punctuation is to take this passage in quotation marks as constituting what is said (vuttaṃ) about X as named in the first part of the sentence. In other words, this constitutes the description that the Buddha has made about dependently-coarisen consciousness. The second pattern is the only one that make sense in this context: "Worthless man, hasn't dependently co-arisen consciousness been described by me in many ways (that), 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'?"

Thus it is clear that the Buddha here is discussing dependently co-arisen consciousness in a way that does not preclude the possibility that there is also a consciousness that lies beyond the six sense-media, is not dependently co-arisen, and is neither momentary nor eternal, as it stands outside the dimension of time.
There was a discussion of this translation here - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=10017
mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by mal4mac »

manas wrote:
mal4mac wrote: “In his essay “No-self or Not-self?” he makes it clear that his understanding of the teaching of anatta is that there is, in fact, an eternal soul, but that nothing that is part of our time-space continuum is part of that soul, and so we must learn not to be attached to anything in this samsaric world.
Malmac,

I don't know how you draw such a conclusion, but you have clearly misunderstood what he is getting at in the essay.
I did not draw such a conclusion, if you read my original post you will see that this was a quote from Tom Pepper. At the time of posting I hadn't even read the essay!

If you read down the thread then you'll see I actually then read the essay, and say that I don't see how Tom could have drawn these conclusions from the essay.
mal4mac wrote: The teaching on anatta is subtle and can take some time to grasp. But while striving to comprehend it, do beware of putting words into the mouths of respected Dhamma teachers, because Thanissaro Bhikkhu did not and does not say what you wrote (just above). I highly recommend listening to the entire talk...
You might want to address these remarks to Tom Pepper.

I don't like listening to talks, reading is quicker (!) Can you summarise his argument to show why Tom is wrong?

kind regards
Mal
- Mal
mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by mal4mac »

reflection wrote:It'll probably be much more fruitful to discuss the question "do the suttas teach a soul?" instead, or "how do we find the answer to the soul/no soul dilemma on a practical level?"...
It was fruitful for me to discuss the question "Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?". Though I agree it's more fruitful to discuss the question "do the suttas teach a soul?" and "how do we find the answer to the soul/no soul dilemma on a practical level?".

Someone quoted "Consciousness without surface, endless, radiant all around... (MN 49, trans. Thanissaro, 2007)"

If a consciousness is endless in time then it's a soul, but "endless" in this quote might just refer to space, and might just be a hyperbole... as you might say "the endless plain stretched out before me", when the plain is certainly not really endless.

Wikipedia: "If the word "soul" simply refers to an incorporeal component in living things that can continue after death, then Buddhism does not deny the existence of the soul." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Buddhism

Seems conclusive, but do we trust Wikipedia?

Can everyone agree on the OED definition of soul as "immaterial part of man, held to survive death"? If so, anyone saying "soul is a Christian concept" is using the wrong definition...
- Mal
Post Reply