What is self ? What is soul ?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: What is self ? What is soul ?

Post by Zom »

Self (atta) is an (imaginary) unchanging entity of a particular being. Different people, though, may take different things as their "self". I recommend to read DN1 sutta which covers this question in details. Usually people think that "self" is their consciousness or their volition. Some deluded buddhists think that 5 khandhas are not self, but still, there is self somewhere somehow 8-) These generally don't like the idea "there is no self" and try to argue that Buddha never said that.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: What is self ? What is soul ?

Post by Sam Vara »

James Tan wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:42 pm
Form(feeling perception volition consciousness) is anatta , Form etc is not atta (self) ?

Does atta here refer to self/permanent entity/soul/essence/fundamental principle ?

Does anatta here refer to Not (self/permanent entity/soul/essence/fundamental principle) ?

Thanks .
Hi James,

In this particular context, I believe that atta refers to a permanent entity or essence. Therefore anatta (here and elsewhere) refers to there not being any such permanent or eternal essence to be found within our experience.

I favour this interpretation because it is consistent with other bits of the Buddha's teaching, for example on kamma. I tend to think that the term "self" is a bit misleading in this context, as it does not appear to mean in everyday English what the Buddha understood by atta; and indeed the concept of anatta can often be a bit of a red herring.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: What is self ? What is soul ?

Post by cappuccino »

Ātman, attā or attan in Buddhism is the concept of self

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Buddhism)
User1249x
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: What is self ? What is soul ?

Post by User1249x »

On their own they are just two 4 symbol combinations arranged in a specific order to relate particular information.

Soul (biblical definition) is an abstract conception where "X is not-enviroment, eternal & god made".
Self is an abstract conception where "X is not The Enviroment"

If put into a context more information could be derived and meaning tweaked by adding and/or removing defining characteristics.

It is probably not a very good explaination but it is best i could do so i welcome constructive criticism, scrutiny and questions.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: What is self ? What is soul ?

Post by cappuccino »

Form… feeling… perception… fabrications… consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. A virtuous monk should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful… not-self
sentinel
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: What is self ? What is soul ?

Post by sentinel »

Sam Vara wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:46 pm
James Tan wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:42 pm
Form(feeling perception volition consciousness) is anatta , Form etc is not atta (self) ?

Does atta here refer to self/permanent entity/soul/essence/fundamental principle ?

Does anatta here refer to Not (self/permanent entity/soul/essence/fundamental principle) ?

Thanks .
Hi James,

In this particular context, I believe that atta refers to a permanent entity or essence. Therefore anatta (here and elsewhere) refers to there not being any such permanent or eternal essence to be found within our experience.

I favour this interpretation because it is consistent with other bits of the Buddha's teaching, for example on kamma. I tend to think that the term "self" is a bit misleading in this context, as it does not appear to mean in everyday English what the Buddha understood by atta; and indeed the concept of anatta can often be a bit of a red herring.
So , what do you think ?
The Pali terms for me and mine in the ethical or religious context are ahamkara and mamamkara.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: What is self ? What is soul ?

Post by Sam Vara »

James Tan wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:22 am
Sam Vara wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:46 pm
James Tan wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:42 pm
Form(feeling perception volition consciousness) is anatta , Form etc is not atta (self) ?

Does atta here refer to self/permanent entity/soul/essence/fundamental principle ?

Does anatta here refer to Not (self/permanent entity/soul/essence/fundamental principle) ?

Thanks .
Hi James,

In this particular context, I believe that atta refers to a permanent entity or essence. Therefore anatta (here and elsewhere) refers to there not being any such permanent or eternal essence to be found within our experience.

I favour this interpretation because it is consistent with other bits of the Buddha's teaching, for example on kamma. I tend to think that the term "self" is a bit misleading in this context, as it does not appear to mean in everyday English what the Buddha understood by atta; and indeed the concept of anatta can often be a bit of a red herring.
So , what do you think ?
The Pali terms for me and mine in the ethical or religious context are ahamkara and mamamkara.
Sorry, could you clarify the question? I said what I thought the Buddha meant in the context given. What do I think about what?
User1249x
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: What is self ? What is soul ?

Post by User1249x »

Sam Vara wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:19 pm Both terms have such a wide range of definitions that people here on DW and elsewhere tend to talk past one another because they are very likely to be using very different conceptions. They are not simple concepts like "cup" or "table".

I'm sure there are many people who will be only too glad to provide you with their favourite definition of either or both these terms, but it probably makes more sense to ask the question "How is this term used in a particular defined context?"
+1,
also ie when driving a car, for convenience Self (can) refer to the driving unit. As long as the car is controlled it can be taken as a self and distinct from the external. if one says "i was going at 140 mph" then one can ask if he really belives that. So in a sense car is conventionally denoted as a self as long as it is controlled, if one leaves/sells the car it becomes external and same goes for one's limbs, if a leg is left in a car after a crash, the leg too is no longer perceived to be not-enviroment in some sense [context].

good questions itt
Upeksha
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:23 am

Re: What is self ? What is soul ?

Post by Upeksha »

James Tan wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:22 am Greetings to all ,

What does it mean , self and soul ?
When we said not self , is it similar to not soul ?
Can the translation of anatta be regarded as
Not self , No self , Not soul , No soul ?
Are they all same or different from each other ?

Thanks .
I think that maybe you're on the cusp of a translation/semantics issue. Bear in mind that the Buddha did not speak in Pali or Sanskrit, so even the words anatta/anatman need to be treated a little bit carefully.

The word 'soul' in English has so many different meanings, likewise 'self.' It is fine to use either in translation for atta, but they will only ever be very approximate.

The best way into the question you ask - "Can the translation of anatta be regarded as
Not self , No self , Not soul , No soul ?" - is to consider it as the negation of a very particular conception of self or soul. i.e. one that is permanent and unchanging.

And the best method to consider this negation is via your own meditative investigation. i.e. examine each aggregate and analyse whether or not it gives rise to or leads to a self or soul.

:anjali:
sentinel
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: What is self ? What is soul ?

Post by sentinel »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 8:27 am
James Tan wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:22 am
Sam Vara wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:46 pm

Hi James,

In this particular context, I believe that atta refers to a permanent entity or essence. Therefore anatta (here and elsewhere) refers to there not being any such permanent or eternal essence to be found within our experience.

I favour this interpretation because it is consistent with other bits of the Buddha's teaching, for example on kamma. I tend to think that the term "self" is a bit misleading in this context, as it does not appear to mean in everyday English what the Buddha understood by atta; and indeed the concept of anatta can often be a bit of a red herring.
So , what do you think ?
The Pali terms for me and mine in the ethical or religious context are ahamkara and mamamkara.
Sorry, could you clarify the question? I said what I thought the Buddha meant in the context given. What do I think about what?
I was wondering , does the word self of English equivalent to atta / atman ?

Is it atta is a Pali word which is similar to Atman in Sanskrit ?
sentinel
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: What is self ? What is soul ?

Post by sentinel »

cappuccino wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2018 8:12 pm Form… feeling… perception… fabrications… consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. A virtuous monk should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful… not-self
Form… feeling… perception… fabrications… consciousness

Not self or not ego ?
No self or no ego ?
Or
Not me ?
No me ?
User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 2211
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

Re: What is self ? What is soul ?

Post by No_Mind »

High time the issue of semantics is thrashed out in full --
Bhikkhus, form is not-self ... Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self ... Bhikkhus, perception is not-self ... Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self ...
Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self ...

Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self
P is not X ... Q is not X ... R is not X ... S is not X ... T is not X

Does that mean X does not exist?

All, for an against, give your opinion.

:namaste:
"The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”― Albert Camus
User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 2211
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

Re: What is self ? What is soul ?

Post by No_Mind »

I am sharing my opinion (about above question)

P is not X ... Q is not X ... R is not X ... S is not X ... T is not X means P, Q, R, S, T should not be mistaken as X .. it does not mean X does not exist.

The body, its thoughts, feelings, perceptions, determinations are not the self. Does not mean the self does not exist.

:namaste:
"The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”― Albert Camus
User1249x
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: What is self ? What is soul ?

Post by User1249x »

No_Mind wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:32 am All, for an against, give your opinion.
i vote middle way and encourage people to actually study and train general semantics.
General semantics is not merely linguistics or the fact that words have meaning. It is actually a very profound insight into nature thinking.

Middle way as in having a solid understanding of how people relate to concepts and how those are used to interperet experiences creating a more or less accurate model of the system in which all in-formation gains footing and thus predicting outcomes.
Last edited by User1249x on Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:53 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: What is self ? What is soul ?

Post by Sam Vara »

James Tan wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:56 am

I was wondering , does the word self of English equivalent to atta / atman ?

Is it atta is a Pali word which is similar to Atman in Sanskrit ?
My opinion is that the English word "self" is a poor translation of atta/atman. The latter refers to an eternal unchanging entity, which is not necessarily present in the ordinary English word "self". So it's a bit misleading. And yes, I think that when the Buddha used the term atta, he was using the term and meaning prevalent in the culture of his time, which was atman. I'm open to correction, of course, but that's how it makes sense to me without contradicting other aspects of the Buddha's teaching.
Post Reply