Buddhists: if not a soul, then what?

[crossfire]

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.

In my buddhist tradition, "not two" means free from the dualistic like/dislike perceptive bias, which is much different than advaita.

 

[firedragon]

Buddhism teaches that there is no soul.

So, what is reborn?

I googled but am still confused.

Ah the age old question of "how". This was debated, but never established "how". Anatta is a teaching, but not explained exactly how it happens. If there is a punarbhava, what is generated in the new plain? If not without an Atta or Athman?

I have never seen a conclusive answer to this.

 

[metis]

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.

I misread what you posted as I mistook "mental energy" for "soul", so thanks for the correction.

 

[metis]

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.

Yes, that's true, but it is really more pronounced within Hinduism. And even coming up with a basic statement of what Hinduism actually entails is problematic.

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".

So true.

 

[firedragon]

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.

This is one view, but its not scriptural. It's an opinion. One type of solution to the Anatta of Buddhism.

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.

Manas means "something to do with the mind". Not mind per se. Mind is "Mana". Manasghatha means mental disease. Manas Ghatha.

Jiva doesnt mean soul. Soul is Atta. Jiva means "life".

Peace.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Where do beings come from and where are they going?

"There are three possible answers to this question. Those who believe in a god or gods usually claim that before an individual is created, he/she does not exist, then he/she comes into being through the will of a god. He/she lives their life and then, according to what they believe or do in their life, they either go to eternal heaven or hell. There are others, humanists and scientists, who claim that the individual comes into being at conception due to natural causes, lives and then at death, ceases to exist. Buddhism does not accept either of these explanations. The first gives rise to many ethical problems If a good god really creates each of us, it is difficult to explain why so many people are born with the most dreadful deformities, or why so many children are miscarried just before birth or are still-born. Another problem with the theistic explanation is that it seems very unjust that a person should suffer eternal pain in hell for 60 or 70 years of non-belief or immoral living. Likewise, 60 or 70 years of good living seems a very small outlay for eternal bliss in heaven. for what he/she did in those years on Earth The second explanation is better than the first and has more scientific evidence to support it but still leaves several important questions unanswered. How can a phenomenon so amazingly complex as consciousness develop from the simple meeting of two cells, the sperm and the egg? And now that parapsychology is a recognised branch of science, phenomena like telepathy are increasingly difficult to fit into the materialistic model of the mind.

Buddhism offers the most satisfactory explanation of where beings come from and where they are going. When we die, the mind, with all the tendencies, preferences, abilities and characteristics that have been developed and conditioned in this life, re-establishes itself in a fertilised egg. Thus the individual grows, is re-born and develops a personality conditioned both by the mental characteristics that have been carried over. And by the new environment, the personality will change and be modified by conscious effort ;and conditioning factors like education, parental influence and society and once again at death, re-establishing itself in a new fertilised egg. This process of dying and being reborn will continue until the conditions that cause it, craving and ignorance, cease. When they do, instead of being reborn, the mind attains a state called Nirvana and this is the ultimate goal of Buddhism and the purpose of life."

(Ven. S. Dhammika, buddhanet.net)

 

[metis]

Buddhism offers the most satisfactory explanation of where beings come from and where they are going. When we die, the mind, with all the tendencies, preferences, abilities and characteristics that have been developed and conditioned in this life, re-establishes itself in a fertilised egg. Thus the individual grows, is re-born and develops a personality conditioned both by the mental characteristics that have been carried over. And by the new environment, the personality will change and be modified by conscious effort ;and conditioning factors like education, parental influence and society and once again at death, re-establishing itself in a new fertilised egg. This process of dying and being reborn will continue until the conditions that cause it, craving and ignorance, cease. When they do, instead of being reborn, the mind attains a state called Nirvana and this is the ultimate goal of Buddhism and the purpose of life."

Personally, I really don't get into that as I find no evidence for it, which is an acceptable position to take within Buddhism, btw.

 

[firedragon]

Where do beings come from and where are they going?

"There are three possible answers to this question. Those who believe in a god or gods usually claim that before an individual is created, he/she does not exist, then he/she comes into being through the will of a god. He/she lives their life and then, according to what they believe or do in their life, they either go to eternal heaven or hell. There are others, humanists and scientists, who claim that the individual comes into being at conception due to natural causes, lives and then at death, ceases to exist. Buddhism does not accept either of these explanations. The first gives rise to many ethical problems If a good god really creates each of us, it is difficult to explain why so many people are born with the most dreadful deformities, or why so many children are miscarried just before birth or are still-born. Another problem with the theistic explanation is that it seems very unjust that a person should suffer eternal pain in hell for 60 or 70 years of non-belief or immoral living. Likewise, 60 or 70 years of good living seems a very small outlay for eternal bliss in heaven. for what he/she did in those years on Earth The second explanation is better than the first and has more scientific evidence to support it but still leaves several important questions unanswered. How can a phenomenon so amazingly complex as consciousness develop from the simple meeting of two cells, the sperm and the egg? And now that parapsychology is a recognised branch of science, phenomena like telepathy are increasingly difficult to fit into the materialistic model of the mind.

Buddhism offers the most satisfactory explanation of where beings come from and where they are going. When we die, the mind, with all the tendencies, preferences, abilities and characteristics that have been developed and conditioned in this life, re-establishes itself in a fertilised egg. Thus the individual grows, is re-born and develops a personality conditioned both by the mental characteristics that have been carried over. And by the new environment, the personality will change and be modified by conscious effort ;and conditioning factors like education, parental influence and society and once again at death, re-establishing itself in a new fertilised egg. This process of dying and being reborn will continue until the conditions that cause it, craving and ignorance, cease. When they do, instead of being reborn, the mind attains a state called Nirvana and this is the ultimate goal of Buddhism and the purpose of life."

(Ven. S. Dhammika, buddhanet.net)

How does Buddhism explain the beginning of human life? Is it in the Tipitaka?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Personally, I really don't get into that as I find no evidence for it, which is an acceptable position to take within Buddhism, btw.

I also have doubts. Buddhists believe there is no (permanent) self. Personal characteristics are in constant flux. They are formed by genetics and memory/experience. Even identical twins are different... There is no evidence that after we die personal characteristics are transfered to a fertilized egg. It would be necessary to retain DNK and memories.

 

[PearlSeeker]

How does Buddhism explain the beginning of human life? Is it in the Tipitaka?

I don't know.

 

[firedragon]

I don't know.

OK. Thank you Pearl Seeker.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I have heard one Buddhist argument that impermanence is obvious, since we are continually changing. This is an argument against there being a soul.

In Buddhism you can cause more suffering or decrease suffering. In Buddhism you can cause more suffering or decrease suffering. See what I did just now? I repeated the same sentence twice, causing you to suffer twice. It is a rebirth of suffering right inside of a paragraph. Rebirth may not be about birth.

 

[crossfire]

How does Buddhism explain the beginning of human life? Is it in the Tipitaka?

The mechanism/fuel for rebirth is:
clinging/craving/addiction
Kutuhalasala Sutta: With Vacchagotta

 

[Aupmanyav]

I don't think Buddha would have said the last sentence.

"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."

Does it mean that the being is born again in a new body when Buddha does not believe in existence of soul and calls it as 'anatta', without substance?

 

[PearlSeeker]

There is a problem (paradox). If you say someone is constantly changing then there is a constant someone who is changing.

 

[firedragon]

The mechanism/fuel for rebirth is:
clinging/craving/addiction
Kutuhalasala Sutta: With Vacchagotta

I was referring to the beginning of life crossfire. But thanks for the reference.

 

[firedragon]

I don't think Buddha would have said the last sentence.

"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."

Does it mean that the being is born again in a new body when Buddha does not believe in existence of soul and calls it as 'anatta', without substance?

Aup. Do you know why this website reference says Sanyuktha nikaaya 44.9 as reference? To me that's a strange reference. Just asking if you know.

The translation is not quite right anyway.

Nevertheless, maybe I could make this sentence a little clearer to you since you have asked this question.

1. It does not say "reborn". Reborn is the translators own personal interpretation.
2. It only says that the being or in other words the "living being" (saththo means animal as in any living being from the animal kind is called an animal).
3. This living being leaves a body and has not "come" to another body.
4. At this point it could be that the animal or being is "caused" to not do so by greed.

It doesnt really say "reborn".

Nevertheless your dilemma of Anatta and Atta is not a concluded argument. It was always debated and theorised in many ways. Anatta remains a dilemma. But if you read the Anatta suththan in the same sanyuttha nikaya you will see certain things have been said as explanation to what Anatta actually means. It means your looks or image is anatta. No soul. Your pain is "no soul". Your intellect is no soul.

I think one of the problems with this type of websites is that the reference is giving some weird number like 44.9 etc etc without the actual chapter name. The Anatta suttan is in anichcha vaggo. Anichcha means "uncertainty". So if you read the text with that in mind you can understand Anatta has something to do with uncertainty. When you live you should know that your death, health, state of hermit-hood or chastity of being a pavidhi or monk is also uncertain. When you die, what takes place is also uncertain. Thus, my personal opinion is that Anatta is a teaching established to make sure you shed all of these worldly certainties, ego and greed. You have no soul. What nonsense are these things like greed and certainties? They are utterly useless, nonsense. That's the teaching of the Tipitaka.

Edit: I will tag @crossfire to this reply if you don't mind because he referred this page directly.

Cheers.

 

[Secret Chief]

he

she

 

[crossfire]

Aup. Do you know why this website reference says Sanyuktha nikaaya 44.9 as reference? To me that's a strange reference. Just asking if you know.

The translation is not quite right anyway.

Nevertheless, maybe I could make this sentence a little clearer to you since you have asked this question.

1. It does not say "reborn". Reborn is the translators own personal interpretation.
2. It only says that the being or in other words the "living being" (saththo means animal as in any living being from the animal kind is called an animal).
3. This living being leaves a body and has not "come" to another body.
4. At this point it could be that the animal or being is "caused" to not do so by greed.

It doesnt really say "reborn".

Nevertheless your dilemma of Anatta and Atta is not a concluded argument. It was always debated and theorised in many ways. Anatta remains a dilemma. But if you read the Anatta suththan in the same sanyuttha nikaya you will see certain things have been said as explanation to what Anatta actually means. It means your looks or image is anatta. No soul. Your pain is "no soul". Your intellect is no soul.

I think one of the problems with this type of websites is that the reference is giving some weird number like 44.9 etc etc without the actual chapter name. The Anatta suttan is in anichcha vaggo. Anichcha means "uncertainty". So if you read the text with that in mind you can understand Anatta has something to do with uncertainty. When you live you should know that your death, health, state of hermit-hood or chastity of being a pavidhi or monk is also uncertain. When you die, what takes place is also uncertain. Thus, my personal opinion is that Anatta is a teaching established to make sure you shed all of these worldly certainties, ego and greed. You have no soul. What nonsense are these things like greed and certainties? They are utterly useless, nonsense. That's the teaching of the Tipitaka.

Edit: I will tag @crossfire to this reply if you don't mind because he referred this page directly.

Cheers.

My view of anatta is to focus on the interconnected processes of change (karma) that occur (this leads to that) rather than to cling to the idea of an unchanging core. If Atman is eternally unchanging, then what is the point in even trying to evolve and escape samsara's cycle of addiction? In this, I totally agree with the uncertainty principle you invoked here.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is a problem (paradox). If you say someone is constantly changing then there is a constant someone who is changing.

Why do you think it is a supernatural being which people term as God? The constant that changes but does not change is, IMHO, 'physical energy'. It can take any form or return to its former forms. Atoms in a human body can go to non-living substances and also return from there to human bodies.