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

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Apr 07, 2010 6:38 am

pegembara wrote: According to the Buddha, rupa not only refers to the physical body but also includes everything in the universe as one entity!
One entity? Please elaborate.
>> 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
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 » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:05 am

When you are in any of those events, sleeping, unconscious, in a coma, your senses cease to function due to the absence of your mental self.
Good example. Does that mean that the state of coma or deep sleep as any unconscious state equals to nibbana (to be more exact - parinibbana)? =)

One one hand we can say yes - sinse in deep sleep we have no suffering at all. Since actually.. we have nothing there, and that includes suffering too. If this state would be eternal - there would be no suffering, never, without any possibility to wake up and get a full dose )))) What is more - if we say "no self", then there is in reality no one, who "annihilates", that's why there is nothing to fear - fear is a delusion that "I do exist". If no such fear, why worry about endless coma? =)

On the other hand here stands the discription that nibbana is the highest sukha, it is pleasant (and so here we have that "endless mind" theory of Ven. Thanissaro and some other teachers, and critisism of "no self" as wrong opinion, since Buddha didn't say that there is no self =).


Those who don't agree with endless mind as parinibbana, say that this theory is still a clining to some kind of transcendent existence.
Those who agree - say that "total emptiness" as parinibbana is wrong view of annihilationism.

Quite interesting, eh.. ? ))
Last edited by Zom on Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:33 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Wind
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by Wind » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:11 am

Read this Sutta, the Buddha was asked if there is a "self".

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

pegembara
Posts: 1641
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by pegembara » Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:00 am

tiltbillings wrote:
pegembara wrote: According to the Buddha, rupa not only refers to the physical body but also includes everything in the universe as one entity!
One entity? Please elaborate.
The external world exists in dependence on the 5 senses represented by rupa. No eyes, no color; no ears, no sound, no body no temperature. We use instruments to extend our "senses" eg. microscopes, telescopes etc. No senses no external world.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

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

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:07 pm

pegembara wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
pegembara wrote: According to the Buddha, rupa not only refers to the physical body but also includes everything in the universe as one entity!
One entity? Please elaborate.
The external world exists in dependence on the 5 senses represented by rupa. No eyes, no color; no ears, no sound, no body no temperature. We use instruments to extend our "senses" eg. microscopes, telescopes etc. No senses no external world.
Does not quite point to "the universe as one entity."
>> 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
bodom
Posts: 6438
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by bodom » Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:27 pm

Dependently arisen (paticcasamupaddha) does not imply that "all is one" but that things only exist due to many causes and conditions.

:anjali:
The heart of the path is so simple. No need for long explanations. Give up clinging to love and hate, just rest with things as they are. That is all I do in my own practice.

Do not try to become anything. Do not make yourself into anything. Do not be a meditator. Do not become enlightened. When you sit, let it be. When you walk, let it be. Grasp at nothing. Resist nothing.

Of course, there are dozens of meditation techniques to develop samadhi and many kinds of vipassana. But it all comes back to this-just let it all be. Step over here where it is cool, out of the battle.

- Ajahn Chah

Mawkish1983
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Essex, UK

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by Mawkish1983 » Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:02 pm

I'm reminded of the ignoble vs the noble search. To say that deep sleep is nibbana (or parinibbana) I think is totally wrong. Sleep is subject to at least one of the list: birth, aging, sickness, death, sorrow and defilement. Deep sleep of any kind (unconsciousness, coma, etc) is impermanent and, therefore, not possibly nibbana. The most 'permanent' sleep I can think of is death, and even that is taught to be impermanent (punabbhava) and therefore not nibbana.

pegembara
Posts: 1641
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by pegembara » Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:42 pm

Mawkish1983 wrote:I'm reminded of the ignoble vs the noble search. To say that deep sleep is nibbana (or parinibbana) I think is totally wrong. Sleep is subject to at least one of the list: birth, aging, sickness, death, sorrow and defilement. Deep sleep of any kind (unconsciousness, coma, etc) is impermanent and, therefore, not possibly nibbana. The most 'permanent' sleep I can think of is death, and even that is taught to be impermanent (punabbhava) and therefore not nibbana.
Deep sleep is not nibbana. Is normal death same as parinibbana? If not why not? Hoping for some answers here.
Some believe the difference between "permanent sleep" and parinibbana is the bhavanga state. Is bhavanga canonical?
When a person is fast asleep and is in a dreamless state, he experiences a kind of consciousness which is more or less passive than active. It is similar to the consciousness one experiences at the moment of conception and at the moment of death (cuti). The Buddhist philosophical term for this type of consciousness is Bhavanga which means factor of life, or indispensable cause or condition of existence.

Bhavanga is so called because it is an essential condition for continued existence. Life-continuum has been suggested as the closest English equivalent for Bhavanga.

http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/bu ... each20.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“There are, bhikkhus, two elements of Nibbana with basis still remaining. Here,
bhikkhus, a bhikkhu is an Arahant, one who has destroyed the defilements who has lived
the life, done what was to be done, laid aside the burden, who has attained his goal, who
has destroyed the fetters of existence, who has rightly understood, is delivered. His five
sense organs still remain and as he is not devoid of them he undergoes the pleasant and
the unpleasant experiences. That destruction of his attachment, hatred and delusion is
called the element of Nibbana with the basis still remaining.

“What, bhikkhus, is the element of Nibbana without the basis?

Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu is an arahant…is delivered. In this very life, all
sensations will have no delight for him…(after his death when the body and all senses
cease) (Udana)
:namaste:
Last edited by pegembara on Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by PeterB » Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:53 pm

bodom wrote:Dependently arisen (paticcasamupaddha) does not imply that "all is one" but that things only exist due to many causes and conditions.

:anjali:
I think that we can saftely say that Dependant Origination and the idea that " all is one" are mutually incompatible.

Mawkish1983
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Essex, UK

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by Mawkish1983 » Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:07 pm

pegembara wrote:Some believe the difference between "permanent sleep" and parinibbana is the bhavanga state.
My point (although poorly made) was that there is no 'permanent sleep'. My understanding is that even death is impermanent. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have to bother practicing, we could end our suffering really quickly via self-euthanasia. It's a good thing the Buddha didn't teach that, or the Pali Canon would be much much shorter!

Edit: Nibbana is clearly defined as the unborn, the unaging, unsusceptible to sickness, the undying, the non-sorrowful, the undefiled supreme liberation from bondage, unbinding etc. I don't think that means one who has attained nibbana is unaging, unsusceptible to sickness etc but that the state of nibbana is the one permanent thing. Maybe that's why it sits outside the dhamma seals (or I've also seen it listed as a fourth dhamma seal). You can wake up from being asleep, hence sleep is subject to 'death'. From this, my understanding is that nibbana is not something you can 'lose'.

Of course, my understand may be completely wrong :) it wouldn't be the first time.

Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by Kenshou » Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:24 pm

Zom wrote:
On the other hand here stands the discription that nibbana is the highest sukha, it is pleasant (and so here we have that "endless mind" theory of Ven. Thanissaro and some other teachers, and critisism of "no self" as wrong opinion, since Buddha didn't say that there is no self =).
I believe I've seen it stated in the suttas more than once that Nibbbana is the highest happiness for the very reason that it is separate from the aggregates, but not because there is something there which is perceiving "happiness", the lack of any conditioned phenomena is the very thing that makes it peaceful. I cannot cite a source on that, I'm just going by memory, maybe someone knows what I'm talking about? I've heard some teachers rationalize that nibbana must involve some degree of perception, but not Thanissaro or any other Theravadin. I like Thanissaro, though I'm not a follower of Thanissarodhamma over Buddhadhamma, and I can't help but feel like you're misrepresenting him a little on some of these issues.

On "consciousness without feature", maybe I haven't read closely enough, but I haven't read anything that suggests that this is something attained upon the death of the Arahant, but rather is related to the experience of the Arahant while still living. I feel there's a similarity between this, and the simile of "consciousness without landing", meaning non-manifestive consciousness, the consciousness of the Arahant that does not delight in, grasp at and proliferate for the sake of any sense-object, as described by http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of (whatever object), then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated.

But then of course even this consciousness will cease upon the death of the Arahant, I don't see any reason to think otherwise.

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

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by meindzai » Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:36 pm

Kenshou wrote:
On "consciousness without feature", maybe I haven't read closely enough, but I haven't read anything that suggests that this is something attained upon the death of the Arahant, but rather is related to the experience of the Arahant while still living. I feel there's a similarity between this, and the simile of "consciousness without landing", meaning non-manifestive consciousness, the consciousness of the Arahant that does not delight in, grasp at and proliferate for the sake of any sense-object, as described by http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of (whatever object), then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated.

But then of course even this consciousness will cease upon the death of the Arahant, I don't see any reason to think otherwise.
I [we] might be wrong, but this is my thinking as well.

-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 » Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:39 pm

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of (whatever object), then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated.

But then of course even this consciousness will cease upon the death of the Arahant, I don't see any reason to think otherwise.
Ven. Thanissaro argues that this consciousness will not cease, because it doesn't have a support in 5 aggregates, it is "apart from them", so when they will ruin, it can't ruin together with them. He also says this consciousness is not included in conditional paticca-samuppada:
This consciousness thus differs from the consciousness factor in dependent co-arising, which is defined in terms of the six sense media. Lying outside of time and space, it would also not come under the consciousness-aggregate, which covers all consciousness near and far; past, present, and future. And, as SN 35.23 notes, the word "all" in the Buddha's teaching covers only the six sense media, which is another reason for not including this consciousness under the aggregates. However, the fact that it is outside of time and space — in a dimension where there is no here, there, or in between
However... yes.. there is some fault in this interpretation. Here:
Consciousness without feature, [1]
without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Here long & short
coarse & fine
fair & foul
name & form
are all brought to an end.
With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness
each is here brought to an end.'"
He puts brackets here (the activity of), however, in the sutta itself there are no such brackets, and it says: With the cessation of consciousness. It seems it says about the cessation of this very "Consciousness without feature", however still one may argue that normal type of consciousness is meant here, but not "Consciousness without feature".

Also he says it goes out of space and time - but here we have phrases: "without end... all around". How can we speak that it is out of space and time if it is written: "all around"...

Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by Kenshou » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:30 pm

If that truly is his position on nibbana, then I do agree that that's weird, sounds kinda like Advaita and seems incongruent with the suttas on the whole.

Funny thing is I've never detected much of this sort of thing in the majority of Than's stuff, and I've read a whole lot of it. I'll set that weird little bit aside.

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

Re: Confusion about eternally of "soul"

Post by Nosta » Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:23 pm

So, as a conclusion, is there any form of conscience on nibbana [read: nibbana after death] or not? Any form of inteligence? For example, could it be possible for a "someone" in nibbana, a buddha, come back to life (be it as a spirit, a body, etc) in order to help others??

Other related question: if a living buddha is dying, could he really choose to reborn again?
EDIT: by the way, everybody speaks about that Thanissaro. When reading Theravada texts, i like writers like Bikkhu Boddhi. They present things on a simple, mechanical and pratical way.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 128 guests