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 .
What is self ? What is soul ?
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
"Soul" is one idea of what a permanent self could be.
chownah
chownah
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
Well in terms of Buddhism self is somewhat like this projection on the wall
It seems to exists but does not .. it is coming together of the movie film strip, projector lens, screen and light that creates this illusion of something being there but nothing actual exists.
It seems to exists but does not .. it is coming together of the movie film strip, projector lens, screen and light that creates this illusion of something being there but nothing actual exists.
"The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”― Albert Camus
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
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?"
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?"
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#BuddhismIf 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. Instead, Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent entity that remains constant behind the changing corporeal and incorporeal components of a living being.
-
- Posts: 10159
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
A good question, but also a tricky one since there are different ideas about what is being negated by anatta.
Looking at how atman is described might help? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Hinduism)
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
What is the immaterial part of soul include?
Is the immaterial permanent?
Is the immaterial permanent?
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
Soul is a mystery, not denied in the scriptures,
it's only a mystery.
it's only a mystery.
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
Form(feeling perception volition consciousness) is anatta , Form etc is not atta (self) ?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?"
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 .
Last edited by sentinel on Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent entity that remains constant behind the changing
corporeal and incorporeal components of a living being.
corporeal and incorporeal components of a living being.
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
If you could refer me the sutta ?cappuccino wrote: ↑Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:44 pm Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent entity that remains constant behind the changing
corporeal and incorporeal components of a living being.
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
I think soul/spirit is not materiality and associated with essence that continues from one life to another .cappuccino wrote: ↑Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:28 pmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#BuddhismIf 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. Instead, Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent entity that remains constant behind the changing corporeal and incorporeal components of a living being.
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
Well , there is a background do you think not so ?No_Mind wrote: ↑Sat Mar 03, 2018 11:51 am Well in terms of Buddhism self is somewhat like this projection on the wall
It seems to exists but does not .. it is coming together of the movie film strip, projector lens, screen and light that creates this illusion of something being there but nothing actual exists.
Perhaps we could take the whole of universes/multiverses is the totality of the aggregates , doesn't the empty space is the background ? But of course this is speaking in terms of materiality .
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
Ananda Sutta: To Ananda
(On Self, No Self, and Not-self)
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
(On Self, No Self, and Not-self)
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
Here the last part of Ananda sutta :cappuccino wrote: ↑Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:10 pm Ananda Sutta: To Ananda
(On Self, No Self, and Not-self)
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
“If, Ānanda, when I was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta, ‘Is there a self?’ I had answered, ‘There is a self,’ would this have been consistent on my part with the arising of the knowledge that ‘all phenomena are nonself’?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“And if, when I was asked by him, ‘Is there no self?’ I had answered, ‘There is no self,’ the wanderer Vacchagotta, already confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking, ‘It seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now.’”
The problem with this part is :
Why do you think that there was an inclination of the Buddha on making an Assumption on Vacchagotta that he was Incapable of Understanding his teachings ?
This doesn't really make sense , does it ?
Even everyone will ask this similar question !