Buddhists: if not a soul, then what?

[an anarchist]

Buddhism teaches that there is no soul.

So, what is reborn?

I googled but am still confused.

 

[metis]

Buddhism teaches that there is no soul.

So, what is reborn?

I googled but am still confused.

Here, I hope this helps:
Do Buddhists believe in a soul?

The short answer is no. In fact, this is the defining premise of Buddhism and one of the main things that differentiates it from other religions. In ancient Hinduism, the soul was called the atman and the basic Buddhist view was described as anatman—no soul.

A soul is considered to be something at our core that is single, independent, and unchanging. This isn’t just a religious belief; deep down, we all believe we have a soul. When I feel hurt, I must believe there is a separate “me” that is being hurt. In that sense, soul, self, and ego all refer to the same thing—our belief in a single, independent, and unchanging “me,” whether mundane or transcendent.

The Buddha said that all phenomena—including us—are conditioned, and all conditioned phenomena are impermanent. Far from being single, independent, and unchanging, we are made up of many parts, a product of causes and conditions, and constantly changing.

Yet Buddhism does say we have an essential nature that transcends conditioned or material existence. In the Mahayana, this is called buddhanature, the open expanse of awakeness in which all good qualities reside.

Is this just another version of a soul? Well, it is if you think of it that way—if you try to identify yourself with it. But in reality, buddhanature is said to be empty of all concepts of self and identity, as well as birth, death, time, space, etc. To be anatman, if you will. -- Do Buddhists believe in a soul? - Lions Roar

 

[F1fan]

Note that trying to compare ideas between different religious backgrounds is often difficult and misleading. I got a book about the world religions from the JW perspective from The Kingdom Hall press that described Mara as the devil, and that was inaccurate. Eastern thought is very different from Western thought.

 

[metis]

Note that trying to compare ideas between different religious backgrounds is often difficult and misleading.

So true.

I remember when I first started studying Buddhism a few decades ago how difficult it was to get off my own Abrahamic paradigm so as to get into the eastern paradigms. The irony is that I find the latter more logical in their orientation, especially Buddhism. The Catholic monk Thomas Merton said that his studying and meditating with Buddhist monks made him a better Catholic.

 

[F1fan]

So true.

I remember when I first started studying Buddhism a few decades ago how difficult it was to get off my own Abrahamic paradigm so as to get into the eastern paradigms. The irony is that I find the latter more logical in their orientation, especially Buddhism. The Catholic monk Thomas Merton said that his studying and meditating with Buddhist monks made him a better Catholic.

I had problems too. I read about Buddhism conceptually and I just couldn't wrap my head around it. Then I read the story of Siddartha's life and his experiences, and then it all made sense. My brain often needs to see the practical to make sense of abstractions.

 

[metis]

I had problems too. I read about Buddhism conceptually and I just couldn't wrap my head around it. Then I read the story of Siddartha's life and his experiences, and then it all made sense. My brain often needs to see the practical to make sense of abstractions.

Yes, and in my case, I can use this analogy: It's like trying to retrain an old dog.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Buddhism teaches that there is no soul.
So, what is reborn?
I googled but am still confused.

Good question. Nothing is reborn. According to Buddhism (Co-dependent origination).
When things, situations (Skandhas) happen to come together, forms are born.
'Karmas' continue (i.e., effect of peoples' actions even after they are no more).

 

[Twilight Hue]

Good question. Nothing is reborn. 'According to Buddhism (Co-dependent origination).
When things happen to come together, forms are born.
'Karmas' continue (i.e., effect of peoples' actions even after they are no more).

Jes passin through.

 

[sayak83]

Buddhism teaches that there is no soul.

So, what is reborn?

I googled but am still confused.

The pattern is reborn.
Let's take a simple example. Imagine a wave moving over a pond. At each time, the wave is made up of water molecules. But the water molecules are not moving forward with the wave, only the disturbance pattern is moving forward through the water molecules that remain in their place. Similarly, Buddha says that there is no seperate substance called the soul, rather it is a conditioned pattern of habits, volitions and maybe memories that is like a disturbance wave that moves from one material configuration to another material configuration which we call bodies.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Good question. Nothing is reborn. 'According to Buddhism (Co-dependent origination).
When things happen to come together, forms are born.
'Karmas' continue (i.e., effect of peoples' actions even after they are no more).

Exactly. Nothing is really ever born, nor nothing ever dies.

I think people confuse the rising and falling of form as being something separate when it's actually the same 'stuff' from which forms rise and fall.

Givin that, there is essentially nowhere to 'travel' for which in place of a soul, is that always continuing potential from which life rises and falls, but never really is destroyed.

It's why I like the candle analogy.

 

[an anarchist]

The pattern is reborn.
Let's take a simple example. Imagine a wave moving over a pond. At each time, the wave is made up of water molecules. But the water molecules are not moving forward with the wave, only the disturbance pattern is moving forward through the water molecules that remain in their place. Similarly, Buddha says that there is no seperate substance called the soul, rather it is a conditioned pattern of habits, volitions and maybe memories that is like a disturbance wave that moves from one material configuration to another material configuration which we call bodies.

I have to think about this deeper to understand, thanks!

 

[crossfire]

The pattern is reborn.
Let's take a simple example. Imagine a wave moving over a pond. At each time, the wave is made up of water molecules. But the water molecules are not moving forward with the wave, only the disturbance pattern is moving forward through the water molecules that remain in their place. Similarly, Buddha says that there is no seperate substance called the soul, rather it is a conditioned pattern of habits, volitions and maybe memories that is like a disturbance wave that moves from one material configuration to another material configuration which we call bodies.

...and rebirth is fueled by craving/addiction...

 

[MikeF]

By the descriptions given, it seems that in both Eastern and Western concepts, there is an identifiable "something" upon which the credits and demerits earned in life attach and affect the "something" into the future and after death of the current physical form. It just seems that in the Eastern concept, the "something" re-forms and subsides in this physical world (until full enlightenment, perhaps), changing physical manifestation, whereas Western thought seems to allow for one physical manifestation, then transition to non-physical realms or existence that is perpetual in that non-physical place.

I don't see a problem with considering the Eastern and Western "something" as the same thing at the core, it is simply differing ideas about the mechanism of, and what can happen to, the "something".

 

[mangalavara]

Buddhism teaches that there is no soul.

So, what is reborn?

I googled but am still confused.

The past year, I was reading through a short introductory book about Buddhism on BuddhaNet. The Theravadan author of the book explained that mental energy (or something like that) leaves the body when the body dies and then enters a new, suitable body.

 

[metis]

I don't see a problem with considering the Eastern and Western "something" as the same thing at the core, it is simply differing ideas about the mechanism of, and what can happen to, the "something".

To a certain extent, you are correct. However, where there's a significant difference is how such beliefs are handled. In Hinduism, beliefs generally vary from region to region, family to family, and individual to individual. This is generally accepted and leads to all sorts of variations to the point that even defining "Hinduism" is fraught with problems.

In Buddhism, it's so "open" that one can disagree with even with basic teachings of Old Sid. The main thing is to use our own objectively oriented head, our own experiences, and what we may determine through serious meditation. To do this, we must drop our own attachments through this process, which also what we in science are trained to do as well.

 

[metis]

The past year, I was reading through a short introductory book about Buddhism on BuddhaNet. The Theravadan author of the book explained that mental energy (or something like that) leaves the body when the body dies and then enters a new, suitable body.

Each of the "rafts" are somewhat different, but what you write above is "transmigration of soul", which is not "kosher" on any raft that I'm familiar with.

 

[Secret Chief]

The past year, I was reading through a short introductory book about Buddhism on BuddhaNet. The Theravadan author of the book explained that mental energy (or something like that) leaves the body when the body dies and then enters a new, suitable body.

There isn't really one answer that goes across all schools/traditions. Theravada is essentially the original texts, whilst the Mahayana is built on this, changed and extended.

 

[mangalavara]

Each of the "rafts" are somewhat different, but what you write above is "transmigration of soul", which is not "kosher" on any raft that I'm familiar with.

That was not transmigration of soul. In Indian philosophy, manas (mind) is not jīva (soul).

It wasn’t my idea, by the way. It was an explanation by a member of the sangha in the Theravada tradition.

 

[MikeF]

To a certain extent, you are correct. However, where there's a significant difference is how such beliefs are handled. In Hinduism, beliefs generally vary from region to region, family to family, and individual to individual. This is generally accepted and leads to all sorts of variations to the point that even defining "Hinduism" is fraught with problems.

In Buddhism, it's so "open" that one can disagree with even with basic teachings of Old Sid. The main thing is to use our own objectively oriented head, our own experiences, and what we may determine through serious meditation. To do this, we must drop our own attachments through this process, which also what we in science are trained to do as well.

I would say that variation from region to region, family to family, and individual to individual is not limited to Hinduism, but speaks to the whole of religious expression throughout history. An outside observer not familiar with Christianity might consider a Southern Pentecostal Church with snake-handling and speaking in tongues an entirely different religion from that of a staid New England Methodist service.

I do agree that great caution must be taken, as some in this thread have cautioned, that if one wants to understand the Eastern, or more specifically, Buddhist concept of the persistent "something", that it should be taken as presented in the Eastern philosophy and not shoe-horned to fit an apple-to-apple comparison with the Western concept of the persistent "something".

 

[Jainarayan]

There’s fundamental misconception in how people think Hinduism sees the soul. There are various and contradictory beliefs. Buddhism is also not monolithic in its beliefs.

1. Advaita, meaning “not two”, posits there is only one thing, one “soul” called Brahman. Brahman can and does manifest individually but the “soul” is of dependent origin. The soul does not exist in and of itself as in Abrahamic ontology. Sri Krishna says “I am the [Soul] that exists within all living beings”. He also explains that he has taken birth many times and remembers them all. I think this view is closest to the Buddhist concept.
2. Dvaita, meaning “two”, says the soul is different and stand-alone from God.
3. Vishishtadvaita (Advaita w/ qualifications) and Achintyabhedabheda (inconceivable oneness and difference) are somewhere between. There is an individual soul but it is dependent on the universal soul, Brahman, for its existence … the wave to the ocean, heat and light from the sun. The wave and the heat and light do not exist independently.