Confusion about eternally of "soul"

A forum for beginners and members of other Buddhist traditions to ask questions about Theravāda (The Way of the Elders). Responses require moderator approval before they are visible in order to double-check alignment to Theravāda orthodoxy.
Nosta
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 11:15 pm

Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by Nosta » Mon Apr 05, 2010 11:31 pm

Hello everybody!
This is my first topic here on the forum. I hope you may forgive my english (its not my mother tongue).

My question here is about a basic teaching on general buddhism, but still a hard one to understand completly: the existence of an eternal soul (the old atman and anatman problem).
Are we a continuum of existence? Are we a never ending process of conscience? I know that there is not exactly something we may call "i" or "myself" or "peter" or "i am maria", etc, but there is an "essence" behind all of that. Maria may die, but she will rebirth as a cat. The cat die and the "flame" will appear (rebirth) again as an horse, etc. The is something in common to Maria, to the cat and to the horse...there is a never.ending process of conscience, a "flame". From here i may ask:
1) Is that "flame"/essence/whatever eternal?
2) When we reach the ultimate nibbama, does that "flame" stop to exist?
3) If the answer to 2) is "no", may we conclude that, in somewhay, the soul (if we call "soul" to that flame) is eternal?

This questions are a little bit confusing to me. I hope you understand my questions. Please answer according to Theravada Buddhism view and compare it with Mahayana views please (i need that to understand properly what Buddhism -in general - says about such questions).

Thank you very much!
:-)

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23045
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by tiltbillings » Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:17 am

Sounds like you are doing a school assignment, which - if that is the case - it would be better to be out front with it. We would be happy to help with this, but you would need to be the one doing the actual work (if it is the case - which it seems to be - that you are doing a school assignment).
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8504
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by cooran » Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:18 am

Hello Nosta,

Welcome to Dhamma Wheel - your English is very good. :smile:

These articles and chapters in books may be helpful whether for an assignment or for your own edification:

NO INNER CORE - - ANATTA by Venerable Sayadaw U Sīlānanda
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... ANATTA.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Buddha's Teaching on Selflessness - Anattaa - An Essay, with extracts from the Sa.myutta-Nikaaya by Nyanatiloka Mahaathera

http://www.bps.lk/other_library/buddhas ... sness.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What the Buddha Taught - The Doctrine of No Soul - Walpola Rahula
http://quangduc.com/English/basic/68wha ... ht-06.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2525
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by Zom » Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:06 pm

Ajahn Thanissaro, as far as I understood, argues, that actually there IS a self.

Read footnotes 13 and 14 in this sutta (translated from pali by himself):

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... n.html#t-9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Sobeh
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:35 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, US
Contact:

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by Sobeh » Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:12 pm

Zom wrote:Ajahn Thanissaro, as far as I understood, argues, that actually there IS a self.

Read footnotes 13 and 14 in this sutta (translated from pali by himself):

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... n.html#t-9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Those footnotes describe how the Buddha refused to render an opinion one way or another on the ontological continuity of any being at all. Your conclusion about Ajahn Thanissaro does not follow.

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2525
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by Zom » Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:20 pm

He points out that opinion "there is no self" is invalid. But acutally I think there are only 2 possibilites: either there is or there is not. As I understood, he says that arahant consciousness, freed from 5 aggregates, continues to be, and that is why opinion "there is no self" is wrong. So we can say (as mayahanists do) that this is our True Self. But I myself has no opinion if he is right, since there are also arguements against this position.

User avatar
Khalil Bodhi
Posts: 2251
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:32 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by Khalil Bodhi » Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:33 pm

Zom,

I would take more time to read and consider Venerable Thanissaro's writings on this subject as well as the suttas themselves lest you fall into Wrong View. Maybe this will help to give you a better grasp of what he's talking about: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... self2.html

Metta,

Mike
To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas.
-Dhp. 183

The Stoic Buddhist: https://www.quora.com/q/dwxmcndlgmobmeu ... pOR2p0uAdH
My Practice Blog:
http://khalilbodhi.wordpress.com

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2525
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by Zom » Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:56 pm

I read that already (as well as other his articles, books, comments), but it doesn't change the matter, that actually he is talking that there IS a self as an individual continuence of being after the perishing of the 5 aggregates (to say so.. a self that can't be classified in the terms of "The All" - also take a look at footnote N9 here - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Otherwise, he would not use that point about "no self" in his explanations. And precisely because of the fear to adopt wrong view, I don't accept his opinion -) (as well as opposite opinions that are taught by other scholar monks, for example, Mahasi Sayadaw).

User avatar
Sobeh
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:35 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, US
Contact:

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by Sobeh » Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:24 pm

Still no self; in the note you've cited, "consciousness without surface" is considered a synonym of Nibbana... and please note, the entire Sutta here is a debate between a classical Brahmin and the Buddha. Sid is using the terms that Baka the Brahmin is using because Baka has claimed as follows:

"The Blessed One said: "On one occasion recently I was staying in Ukkattha in the Subhaga forest at the root of a royal sala tree. Now on that occasion an evil viewpoint had arisen to Baka-Brahma: 'This is constant. This is permanent. This is eternal. This is total. This is not subject to falling away — for this does not take birth, does not age, does not die, does not fall away, does not reappear. And there is no other, higher escape.'"

As noted by Ajahn Thanissaro, this sort of equation between consciousness-without-surface and Nibbana occurs in this exact way only one other time, in the Digha Nikaya - the Nikaya most intended for use when debating with Brahmins. In this context the term takes on the flavor of upaya, 'skillful means'.

Don't let footnotes distract you from anatta, which is thoroughly attested throughout the Tipitaka.

alan
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by alan » Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:33 pm

I don't know, Zom, exactly what you are getting at. All the responses on this thread are sound.
I'm sure you have a good reason for asking the question...would you care to share that with us?

Nosta
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 11:15 pm

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by Nosta » Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:16 pm

Thanks for some of the good links you guys gave me :-) - later i will read them carefully.

For now, i think my question is still not answered lol.I see discussions here that leads me to conclude that this is a hard question. Maybe its too much of a "philosophical" question, and so with no interest at all on the achievement of nibbana, in the practice itself. But i am still greatfull for the answers so far :-)

Maybe the answer to "what is nibbana?" may help us to find the answer. If nibbana is the complete liberation of suffering, the freedom from birth and death, maybe that means that the "essence" i spoke it will end. On the other hand, i think i remember to read somewhere that Buddha said that nibbana is no self and no no self: its both self and no self...thats an hard think to understand lol, maybe even harden than the study of quantic or relativity theories lol.

meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by meindzai » Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Zom wrote:I read that already (as well as other his articles, books, comments), but it doesn't change the matter, that actually he is talking that there IS a self as an individual continuence of being after the perishing of the 5 aggregates (to say so.. a self that can't be classified in the terms of "The All" - also take a look at footnote N9 here - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Otherwise, he would not use that point about "no self" in his explanations. And precisely because of the fear to adopt wrong view, I don't accept his opinion -) (as well as opposite opinions that are taught by other scholar monks, for example, Mahasi Sayadaw).
I guess you skipped over all the parts where he quotes these types of passagse:
Although this last passage indicates that there is a sphere to be experienced beyond the six sensory spheres, it should not be taken as a "higher self." This point is brought out in the Great Discourse on Causation, where the Buddha classifies all theories of the self into four major categories: those describing a self which is either (a) possessed of form (a body) & finite; (b) possessed of form & infinite; (c) formless & finite; and (d) formless & infinite. The text gives no examples of the various categories, but we might cite the following as illustrations: (a) theories which deny the existence of a soul, and identify the self with the body; (b) theories which identify the self with all being or with the universe; (c) theories of discrete, individual souls; (d) theories of a unitary soul or identity immanent in all things. He then goes on to reject all four categories.

or
As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established,

or the view I have no self...

or the view It is precisely because of self that I perceive self...

or the view It is precisely because of self that I perceive not-self...

or the view It is precisely because of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established,

or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower which is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine which is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity.
All quoted in The Not-self Strategy, which you seem to be claiming you read.

-M

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2525
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by Zom » Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 pm

In this context the term takes on the flavor of upaya
As I see from Ajahn Thanissaro explanation in this footnote, he doesn't say that this is an "upaya". Оn the contrarу, here and in many other suttas in his comments it is seen that he develops a theory that this type of consciousness is actually nibbana itself (and that is why he states that that saying "there is no self" is invalid and even more - this is a wrong view of annihilationism).

meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by meindzai » Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:31 pm

Nosta wrote:Thanks for some of the good links you guys gave me :-) - later i will read them carefully.

For now, i think my question is still not answered lol.I see discussions here that leads me to conclude that this is a hard question. Maybe its too much of a "philosophical" question, and so with no interest at all on the achievement of nibbana, in the practice itself. But i am still greatfull for the answers so far :-)

Maybe the answer to "what is nibbana?" may help us to find the answer. If nibbana is the complete liberation of suffering, the freedom from birth and death, maybe that means that the "essence" i spoke it will end. On the other hand, i think i remember to read somewhere that Buddha said that nibbana is no self and no no self: its both self and no self...thats an hard think to understand lol, maybe even harden than the study of quantic or relativity theories lol.
Ok I'll bite, becuase I never got Buddhist homework and I feel left out. :)

There are two extreme views the Buddha rejects. One is called eternalism - that there is a soul tha persists from one lifetime to the next, and will go on forever. This is actuallyt he view of most theistic beliefs, like Christianity, the goal being that if you behave yourself and believe all the right things that you're soul will be joined with God/Brahma/Allah etc.

The other extreme view is called Annhiliationism. This requires two things. #1 it requires there to be some entity called a "self." And #2 that when you die, this "self" disappears.

The Buddha, avoiding extremes, and thus avoiding these views al together, taught not-self. He taught that all dhammas - including Nibanna - were not-self. It's not difficult to understand at all, but it is exceedingly difficult to achieve, due to our attachments. Not just material things mind you, but attachments to our views of our selves - our persistent belief in the idea that we exist and want to continue to exist, when the truth of the matter is that it's this belief that causes us to suffer.

The only thing that "ends" at Nibanna is suffering. There is no "essense" to speak of - none at all.

-M

User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18442
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by Ben » Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:35 pm

Dear Zom
Consciousness is not Nibbana. Consciousness (citta) takes Nibbana as an object. They are different paramattha dhammas.
To conflate consciousness as Nibbana is to reify consciousness and fall into the trap of eternalism.
kind regards

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com..

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 203 guests