Can it be we have a soul .. but not one that is permanent (in a different way) ..
The soul disappears when we attain Nibbana
Does not this explanation fit all the questions .. from how are we reborn, what is reborn, to what is Nibbana (what is snuffed out)
The model I am proposing is .. God/Nature/Universe .. call it whatever put a soul into everyone .. as long as they have that soul they will keep on being reborn .. so try and get rid of the soul .. (bit like taking off a sweater) and you will never be born again.
Buddhism posits we have no eternal soul and we all keep asking what gets reborn. We have a soul till Nibbana. Does this not answer both.
Do we have a soul till Nibbana?
Do we have a soul till Nibbana?
"The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”― Albert Camus
Re: Do we have a soul till Nibbana?
think of it like this,
There is a book and then comes a sequel, the first book is not same the second but because and of the first book arises the second book.
So in this analogy book is all that constitutes a person.
There is a book and then comes a sequel, the first book is not same the second but because and of the first book arises the second book.
So in this analogy book is all that constitutes a person.
Re: Do we have a soul till Nibbana?
I cannot think of one sutta that contradicts this proposition. I would welcome contradictions without argument.
It fits all givens in Buddhism.
It even fits with Jain idea of a soul with black residue which falls off as one works off bad Kamma.
It fits all givens in Buddhism.
It even fits with Jain idea of a soul with black residue which falls off as one works off bad Kamma.
"The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”― Albert Camus
Re: Do we have a soul till Nibbana?
So in regards to this soul
is it the feelings of a being?
is it the consciousness?
is it the body?
is it the perception?
is it the awareness?
is it the ideas?
is it the discursive or applied thought?
is it all these taken together?
What constitutes this soul that you speak of?
If by soul you mean suffering, then that is a fit but we dont have it, we = suffering.
is it the feelings of a being?
is it the consciousness?
is it the body?
is it the perception?
is it the awareness?
is it the ideas?
is it the discursive or applied thought?
is it all these taken together?
What constitutes this soul that you speak of?
If by soul you mean suffering, then that is a fit but we dont have it, we = suffering.
Re: Do we have a soul till Nibbana?
To make this model work I do not need to define the nature of soul. In fact that is not what I am trying
I am trying to connect the web - impermanence, nibbana, and the question - how are we reborn if there is no soul if nothing goes from one life to the next.
I am trying to connect the web - impermanence, nibbana, and the question - how are we reborn if there is no soul if nothing goes from one life to the next.
"The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”― Albert Camus
Re: Do we have a soul till Nibbana?
Yes.We have a soul till Nibbana.
Buddha called it (soul) ignorance.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: Do we have a soul till Nibbana?
I think that the model does work, as far as it goes. You have proposed that there exists something which is consistent with several of the important teachings within the Buddhist tradition (specifically impermanence, continued post-mortem existence, and nibbana), and asked if there is anything within the teaching which falsifies your hypothesis that such a thing exists. I like this a lot because it is in line with Popper's conception of falsifiability - your scientific training is showing!No_Mind wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:15 am To make this model work I do not need to define the nature of soul. In fact that is not what I am trying
I am trying to connect the web - impermanence, nibbana, and the question - how are we reborn if there is no soul if nothing goes from one life to the next.
I know you said that you would welcome "contradictions without argument", so please be forgiving about my misgivings; I'm only mentioning them because I can't think of any suttas which contradict your point. My main issue with the hypothesis is that even if unfalsifiable, it wouldn't actually do much work for us. It appears to be saying no more than that there is a thing which prevents us being in nibbana, and which is the guarantor of rebirth (or at least kammic continuity), and which is not permanent. But unless we know more about what that thing is, then it is little more than saying that these conditions exist (i.e. that we are not in nibbana, that we are reborn, and that everything is impermanent) and that we assume they must have a cause or at least an underlying condition. That doesn't get us very far; we can pick it up as a view, but it doesn't help us.
As soon as you attempt to flesh out the hypothesis and say what such a soul is, you are likely to run into trouble regarding consistency with the suttas. It's not, as Sati found out, consciousness:
https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/sujato
Nor is it any of the other khandas; they are impermanent. Nor is it any of the senses, or any of their objects; they are also impermanent. But unless we can say more about what such a soul is, or what it does, we are left with the view that there is an impermanent thing which provides post-mortem continuity rather than nibbana. And this is to say no more than we expect the same thing to be the cause of those conditions.
Re: Do we have a soul till Nibbana?
where you go wrong is assuming that there is such thing as a life and something goes in and out. There is only a moment by moment arising of consciousnesses, it is all kind of like a dream.
Re: Do we have a soul till Nibbana?
I have always held the view that it is a sixth khanda which Buddha was unwilling to put into the suttas because the moment he did .. it would be deified (because though impermanent it passes from one life to another) and some may propose that if there is such a khanda it is part of a bigger chunk of such a khanda and allow Hindus or rather writers of Upanishads to sabotage his teachings from inside and he was too intelligent for that.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:57 am As soon as you attempt to flesh out the hypothesis and say what such a soul is, you are likely to run into trouble regarding consistency with the suttas. It's not, as Sati found out, consciousness:
https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/sujato
Nor is it any of the other khandas; they are impermanent. Nor is it any of the senses, or any of their objects; they are also impermanent. But unless we can say more about what such a soul is, or what it does, we are left with the view that there is an impermanent thing which provides post-mortem continuity rather than nibbana. And this is to say no more than we expect the same thing to be the cause of those conditions.
He realized that some steady meditation (let us say 2 hours a day for 5 years) would be enough to cause a meditator understand that there is a sixth unspoken khanda and that anyone not doing such serious practice did not need to know about the hidden khanda.
Whereas the other khandas are readily understood, comprehending this one needs some commitment to meditation. (Remember the tucha Potila - small Potila - story where Buddha made fun of a very learned Buddhist monk because he did not meditate much) https://www.watkinsmagazine.com/catching-lizard-tail
The point being if we accept it as a sixth khanda .. it solves all the problems neatly. All that one has to do is meditate few thousand hours and find if this hypothesis is correct.
"The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”― Albert Camus
Re: Do we have a soul till Nibbana?
Many thanks, No_Mind. That makes things a lot more interesting! I'll give this one some more thought...No_Mind wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:39 pm
I have always held the view that it is a sixth khanda which Buddha was unwilling to put into the suttas because the moment he did .. it would be deified (because though impermanent it passes from one life to another) and some may propose that if there is such a khanda it is part of a bigger chunk of such a khanda and allow Hindus or rather writers of Upanishads to sabotage his teachings from inside and he was too intelligent for that.
He realized that some steady meditation (let us say 2 hours a day for 5 years) would be enough to bring a meditator understand that there is a sixth khanda and that anyone not doing such serious practice did not need to know about the hidden khanda.
Whereas the other khandas are readily understood, comprehending this one needs some commitment to meditation. (Remember the tucha Potila - small Potila - story where Buddha made fun of a very learned Buddhist monk because he did not meditate much) https://www.watkinsmagazine.com/catching-lizard-tail
The point being if we accept it as a sixth khanda .. it solves all the problems neatly. All that one has to do is meditate few thousand hours and find if this hypothesis is correct.
I would have thought this probably deserves a new thread to itself.
Re: Do we have a soul till Nibbana?
This is a new thread and this is the hypothesis I present.
There is a "soul."
It is impermanent. But it passes from one life to another.
It may or may not be a khanda and its elusive presence can only be understood by an experienced meditator and its extinction possible only by an arahant. But it can be made extinct and therefore is subject to impermanence.
This khanda causes life.
"The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”― Albert Camus
Re: Do we have a soul till Nibbana?
mod note : topic moved from General Theravada to Connections to other paths
- Lucas Oliveira
- Posts: 1890
- Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:07 pm
Re: Do we have a soul till Nibbana?
Soul
According to Bronkhorst, referring to Frauwallner, Schmithausen and Bhattacharya,
It is possible that original Buddhism did not deny the existence of the soul.[88][note 24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-sectarian_Buddhism
According to Bronkhorst, referring to Frauwallner, Schmithausen and Bhattacharya,
It is possible that original Buddhism did not deny the existence of the soul.[88][note 24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-sectarian_Buddhism
I participate in this forum using Google Translator. http://translate.google.com.br
http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/
http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/
Re: Do we have a soul till Nibbana?
The only different is that khanda no.6 is impermanent and the soul or Buddha nature is permanent .No_Mind wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:01 pmThis is a new thread and this is the hypothesis I present.
There is a "soul."
It is impermanent. But it passes from one life to another.
It may or may not be a khanda and its elusive presence can only be understood by an experienced meditator and its extinction possible only by an arahant. But it can be made extinct and therefore is subject to impermanence.
This khanda causes life.
You always gain by giving
Re: Do we have a soul till Nibbana?
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in
Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in
Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss