Soul theories and the Dhamma

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by Mkoll »

Coëmgenu wrote:
davidbrainerd wrote:
srivijaya wrote:A postulated "eternal, unchanging" soul is a conceptually fabricated straw-man.
Because a self by very definition is a living thing and must change [in some sense at least]. Nor are unchanging and eternal equivalent words [at least not in all senses].
Thats why I suggested that the English word "identity" is closer to the Buddhist conception of "attā" than "self". The equivalent of the English term "self" is "mindstream" in Buddhist terminology, that is just my opinion though. Denying the mindstream is ucchedavāda as far as I know, by most orthodoxies.
Can you quote a sutta that talks about this "mindstream" please? I've never read the term in translations of the suttas that I've read, but maybe it was translated differently.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by mikenz66 »

Probably "mindstream" is more of a commentarial term, which can certainly be found in texts such as:
A Comprehensive Manual of the Abhidhamma. http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=826

However, in the suttas it certainly seems to be the case that individual "streams" of actions and results don't get mixed together - the kamma of one individual doesn't turn up as vipaka in another.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by Coëmgenu »

Coëmgenu wrote:
davidbrainerd wrote:
srivijaya wrote:A postulated "eternal, unchanging" soul is a conceptually fabricated straw-man.
Because a self by very definition is a living thing and must change [in some sense at least]. Nor are unchanging and eternal equivalent words [at least not in all senses].
Thats why I suggested that the English word "identity" is closer to the Buddhist conception of "attā" than "self". The equivalent of the English term "self" is "mindstream" in Buddhist terminology, that is just my opinion though. Denying the mindstream is ucchedavāda as far as I know, by most orthodoxies.
Then, in responce, since only 3 quotes can be embedded:
Mkoll wrote:Can you quote a sutta that talks about this "mindstream" please? I've never read the term in translations of the suttas that I've read, but maybe it was translated differently.
Mindstream=cittasantāna. It refers to an impermanent uneternal unstable and perhaps-ultimately-false, fundamentally arbitrary series of dhammas that frequently misconceives itself as an "eternal I", but is nonetheless united in its particularity of specific delusion. That is my understanding at least.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by Mkoll »

Coëmgenu wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:
davidbrainerd wrote:Because a self by very definition is a living thing and must change [in some sense at least]. Nor are unchanging and eternal equivalent words [at least not in all senses].
Thats why I suggested that the English word "identity" is closer to the Buddhist conception of "attā" than "self". The equivalent of the English term "self" is "mindstream" in Buddhist terminology, that is just my opinion though. Denying the mindstream is ucchedavāda as far as I know, by most orthodoxies.
Then, in responce, since only 3 quotes can be embedded:
Mkoll wrote:Can you quote a sutta that talks about this "mindstream" please? I've never read the term in translations of the suttas that I've read, but maybe it was translated differently.
Mindstream=cittasantāna. It refers to an impermanent uneternal unstable and ultimately false and fundamentally arbitrary series of dhammas that frequently misconceives itself as an "eternal I", but is nonetheless united in its particularity of specific delusion. That is my understanding at least.
Thanks. I have never read of such an idea in the suttas. I believe Mike is correct in saying that it's a commentarial concept.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by Coëmgenu »

Mkoll wrote:Thanks. I have never read of such an idea in the suttas. I believe Mike is correct in saying that it's a commentarial concept.
In the interest of full clarification I believe the orthodox Theravāda conception of the mindstream is that whatever it is, dhammas etc, it is not the self in the Buddhist sense of the word "self". My use of the word "perhaps" was my own hesitancy to claim to be able to speak on "absolute" terms vis-à-vis what is and what isn't authentic Buddhadharma.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by CecilN »

Mkoll wrote:I have never read of such an idea in the suttas.
:reading:
DN 28 : Sampasādanīyasutta
chavimaṃsalohitaṃ aṭṭhiṃ paccavekkhati. Purisassa ca viññāṇasotaṃ pajānāti, ubhayato abbocchinnaṃ idha loke patiṭṭhitañca … chavimaṃsalohitaṃ aṭṭhiṃ paccavekkhati. Purisassa ca viññāṇasotaṃ pajānāti, ubhayato abbocchinnaṃ idha loke appatiṭṭhitañca
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by mikenz66 »

Here's the translation
In this body are hairs, down, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bone, marrow, kidney, heart, liver, membrane, spleen, lungs, bowels, mesentery, stomach, faeces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, saliva, snot, synovial fluid, urine, and goes on to meditate after that on the human skeleton [as covered by] skin, flesh and blood. and he goes on after that to discern the unbroken flux of human consciousness established both in this world and in another world.
https://suttacentral.net/en/dn28/75
It doesn't appear to be a very common term, but perhaps there are other variations...

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by Mkoll »

CecilN wrote:
Mkoll wrote:I have never read of such an idea in the suttas.
:reading:
DN 28 : Sampasādanīyasutta
chavimaṃsalohitaṃ aṭṭhiṃ paccavekkhati. Purisassa ca viññāṇasotaṃ pajānāti, ubhayato abbocchinnaṃ idha loke patiṭṭhitañca … chavimaṃsalohitaṃ aṭṭhiṃ paccavekkhati. Purisassa ca viññāṇasotaṃ pajānāti, ubhayato abbocchinnaṃ idha loke appatiṭṭhitañca
Thanks. Is that what you're referring to as "mindstream," Coemgenu? You used a different Pali term...

For accuracy, I should have said I don't recall reading of such an idea. And that's not surprising because apparently the term only appears in that one sutta: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=8419

The pericope that term is contained in also seems unique—I don't recall reading it anywhere else.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by Coëmgenu »

Mkoll wrote:
CecilN wrote:
Mkoll wrote:I have never read of such an idea in the suttas.
:reading:
DN 28 : Sampasādanīyasutta
chavimaṃsalohitaṃ aṭṭhiṃ paccavekkhati. Purisassa ca viññāṇasotaṃ pajānāti, ubhayato abbocchinnaṃ idha loke patiṭṭhitañca … chavimaṃsalohitaṃ aṭṭhiṃ paccavekkhati. Purisassa ca viññāṇasotaṃ pajānāti, ubhayato abbocchinnaṃ idha loke appatiṭṭhitañca
Thanks. Is that what you're referring to as "mindstream," Coemgenu? You used a different Pali term...
The definition given by the translator for the word "viññāṇasotaṃ" is congruent to what I know for "cittasantāna". I come from a Mahāyāna background, and "cittasantāna" might be merely be a Pali coinage of the Sanskrit term cittasaṃtāna, and viññāṇasotaṃ may well be the native terminology of the Pali Buddhavacana. Or cittasaṃtāna could be a retrojected "Sanskritization" of the Pali cittasantāna, I really don't know.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
srivijaya
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:31 pm
Location: UK

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by srivijaya »

davidbrainerd wrote:
srivijaya wrote:A postulated "eternal, unchanging" soul is a conceptually fabricated straw-man.
Because a self by very definition is a living thing and must change [in some sense at least]. Nor are unchanging and eternal equivalent words [at least not in all senses].
Very much so. Once the conceptually fabricated, metaphysical position is dumped a practitioner can begin to directly investigate. That's why I see no value at all in metaphysics (another story). Unchanging and eternal are not equivalent but tend to get mixed up together when the straw-man is to be refuted. I think it devalues the whole process, as it's obviously contrived, but it seems to be a persistent feature of these kind of debates.
User avatar
srivijaya
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:31 pm
Location: UK

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by srivijaya »

mikenz66 wrote:Here's the translation
In this body are hairs, down, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bone, marrow, kidney, heart, liver, membrane, spleen, lungs, bowels, mesentery, stomach, faeces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, saliva, snot, synovial fluid, urine, and goes on to meditate after that on the human skeleton [as covered by] skin, flesh and blood. and he goes on after that to discern the unbroken flux of human consciousness established both in this world and in another world.
https://suttacentral.net/en/dn28/75
It doesn't appear to be a very common term, but perhaps there are other variations...

:anjali:
Mike
Interesting sutta. The next section is revealing.
and he goes on after that to discern the unbroken flux of human consciousness established both in this world and in another world and he goes after that to discern the unbroken flux of human consciousness as not established either in this world or in another world.

This is the fourth degree of discernment.
User avatar
srivijaya
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:31 pm
Location: UK

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by srivijaya »

Coëmgenu wrote:Thats why I suggested that the English word "identity" is closer to the Buddhist conception of "attā" than "self". The equivalent of the English term "self" is "mindstream" in Buddhist terminology, that is just my opinion though. Denying the mindstream is ucchedavāda as far as I know, by most orthodoxies.
Identity and mindstream have the advantage that they can be viewed as an ever-changing process rather than a "thing".
User avatar
Twilight
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:43 pm

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by Twilight »

Response to soul theories posted here: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 19#p410708

@cappuccino
"It's not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, 'A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'"
Yamaka Sutta
And neither is nibbana the opposite of anihilationism. That is why Buddha said anihilationism is the best out of wrong views.
As for the quote in question, it refers to the fact that there is no self that gets destroyed because there was never a self to begin with. There was just the opinion that there exist a self and this opinion is the one that disappears when achieving stream entry. Then, there exist conceit that exist until attaining arahanthip. As I have explained earlier:
Difference between nibbana and anihilationism:

1. Anahilationist claim it all ends at death and you have to do nothing to stop a round of rebirth.

2. Anihilationist claim that there is a self and this self is destroyed. Buddha claims there was never any self to begin with, just the 5 aggregates.

3. According to Buddha, nibbana is pleasant. Accoding to anihilationist view, it is neutral.
@davidbrainerd:
So much time time and energy is wasted trying to prove there is no self when in reality Buddha was only attacking the idea of viewing the body as the self because it militates against ascetism. Who would enter monasticism and live a celibate life thinking they are only the body? And who that might on a quirk do so would be consistent in it? These are rhetorical questions BTW, because not many people would or could, so the idea of the self being the physical thing, the body or aggregates is a hindrance to monasticism. Its really that simple.
I do not know where you got the idea that if the self is not found it consciousness it must be found in the body. Buddha said neither of the 5 aggregates is self.

The reason these kind of arguments are not even responded but simply moved into this topic is because they show a complete lack of understanding of buddhist doctrine. It is like people who never read the biology book having strong opinions about what is written in the biology book, saying things like humans been made out of metal etc. This is why in such cases a reading of the biology book is recommended not a debate.
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by cappuccino »

Ananda Sutta: To Ananda
(On Self, No Self, and Not-self)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Soul theories and the Dhamma

Post by mikenz66 »

You mean this bit?
If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"
Mike
Post Reply