is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a soul

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a soul

Postby absolute » Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:06 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
from wiki The anattā doctrine is not a type of materialism. Buddhism does not necessarily deny the existence of mental phenomena (such as feelings, thoughts, and sensations) that are distinct from material phenomena.[2] Thus, the conventional translation of anattā as "no-soul"[3] can be misleading. If the word "soul" refers to a non-bodily component in a person that can continue in some way after death, then Buddhism does not deny the existence of a soul.[4] In fact, persons (Pāli: puggala; Sanskrit, pudgala) are said to be characterized by an ever-evolving consciousness (Pali: samvattanika viññana),[5][6] stream of consciousness (Pali: viññana sotam;[5] Sanskrit: vijñana srotām), or mind-continuity (Sanskrit: citta-saṃtāna) which, upon the death or dissolution of the aggregates (skandhas), becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new group of skandhas. However, Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent or static entity that remains constant behind the changing bodily and non-bodily components of a living being. Reportedly, the Buddha reprimanded a disciple who thought that in the process of rebirth the same consciousness is reborn without change.[7] Just as the body changes from moment to moment, so thoughts come and go; and according to the anattā doctrine, there is no permanent conscious substance that experiences these thoughts, as in Cartesianism: rather, conscious thoughts simply arise and perish with no "thinker" behind them.[8] When the body dies, the incorporeal mental processes continue and are reborn in a new body.[4] Because the mental processes are constantly changing, the new being is neither exactly the same as, nor completely different from, the being that died.[9]

On one interpretation, although Buddhism rejects the notion of a permanent self, it does not reject the notion of an empirical self (albeit consisting of constantly changing physical and mental phenomena) that can be conveniently referred to with words such as "I", "you", "being", "individual", etc.[10] Early Buddhist scriptures describe an enlightened individual as someone whose changing, empirical self is highly developed. According to Buddhist teachings, this phenomenon should not, either in whole or in part, be reified, either in affirmation or denial. The Buddha rejected the latter metaphysical assertions as ontological theorizing that binds one to suffering.[11]

On another interpretation, Buddhism rejects any idea of the self. On this view it is incorrect even to speak about an "empirical self". This is because constantly changing physical and mental phenomena all have impermanence, and anything with such impermanence does not amount to the idea of a self. One is permitted to use terms such as "I", "you", and so on, not because they refer to an empirical self, but simply because they are "convenient designations".[12] They are used in much the same way that the word "it" is used in the sentence "It is cold". Here there is nothing that the word "it" refers to. It is merely a grammatical device which allows one to assert "there is cold", while using a substantive term.[13]

Some Mahayana Buddhist sutras and tantras present Buddhist teachings on emptiness using positive language by positing the ultimate reality of the "true self" (atman). In these teachings the word is used to refer to each being's inborn potential to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices, and future status as a Buddha.[14]

Anattā, dukkha (suffering/unease), and anicca (impermanence), are the three dharma seals, which, according to Buddhism, characterise all conditioned phenomena.
i am arguing with non buddhist who said ANATTA IS RELATED TO REBIRTH SO THAT ANATTA IS A KIND OF SOUL and try to prove concept of soul exist in buddhism and iam not doing this for winning but i am just wondering this overview of wikipedia is accurate or not so i am asking it, and also i wanna arguing with him with contextually, not with buddhist view, from my understandings of what buddha taught by walpola rahula there is no such thing as a soul, even in 5 skandhas, but the wikipedia said above the idea that i linked. could you explain to me ?
absolute
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:30 pm

Re: is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a

Postby hop.pala » Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:29 pm

I think this is an game with concepts.For the rebirth is the alaya vijnana,and this is absolut dependent on karma.But really for the Buddhahood is the Buddhadhatu,but it is not for rebirth in the sense that the Buddhadhatu is unborn.The essence of Buddhadhatu is the "unborn",but the dependence is by the klesa,and are we going to original concept:alaya vijnana.
Ok?The unborn Buddhadatu can not be born as self,but the alaya vijnana can be,but because it is dependent originated no self.(too)
hop.pala
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 3:48 am

Re: is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Dec 25, 2013 5:05 pm

The simple answer is that some Buddhists do not deny the existence of a soul. Generally speaking though...
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7884
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a

Postby smcj » Wed Dec 25, 2013 5:31 pm

Sherab Dorje wrote:The simple answer is that some Buddhists do not deny the existence of a soul. Generally speaking though...

You've got to define "soul" for the question to be answered properly.
If the word "soul" refers to a non-bodily component in a person that can continue in some way after death, then Buddhism does not deny the existence of a soul.

Correct.
Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent or static entity that remains constant behind the changing bodily and non-bodily components of a living being

Correct.
i am arguing with non buddhist who said ANATTA IS RELATED TO REBIRTH SO THAT ANATTA IS A KIND OF SOUL and try to prove concept of soul exist in buddhism and iam not doing this for winning but i am just wondering this overview of wikipedia is accurate or not so i am asking it, and also i wanna arguing with him with contextually, not with buddhist view, from my understandings of what buddha taught by walpola rahula there is no such thing as a soul, even in 5 skandhas, but the wikipedia said above the idea that i linked. could you explain to me ?

People here argue about it too. Welcome to the club.
smcj
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a

Postby hop.pala » Wed Dec 25, 2013 6:25 pm

Let the Sherab i deny not to,
"You've got to define "soul" for the question to be answered properly."

I define but first you define your self.When you see smjc i no denied and not denied the soul.
And let please that something can not be exist.
hop.pala
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 3:48 am

Re: is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a

Postby hop.pala » Wed Dec 25, 2013 6:29 pm

And let please that something can not be exist
hop.pala
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 3:48 am

Re: is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a

Postby hop.pala » Wed Dec 25, 2013 6:35 pm

Ok undestand?

"The unborn Buddhadatu can not be born as self,but the alaya vijnana can be,but because it is dependent originated no self.(too)"
hop.pala
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 3:48 am

Re: is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a

Postby hop.pala » Wed Dec 25, 2013 6:39 pm

A form seen from a distance
Is seen clearly by those nearby.
If a mirage were water,
Why is water not seen by those nearby?

No. 53.
The way this world is seen
As real by those afar
Is not so seen by those nearby
For whom it is signless like a mirage.

No. 54.
Just as a mirage is seemingly water
But not water and does not in fact exist [as water],
So the aggregates are seemingly a self
But not a self and do not exist in fact.

No. 55.
Having thought a mirage to be water
And then having gone there,
Someone would just be stupid to surmise,
"That water does not exist."

No. 56.
One who conceives of the mirage-like world
That it does or does not exist
Is consequently ignorant.
When there is ignorance, one is not liberated.

nagarjuna
hop.pala
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 3:48 am

Re: is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a

Postby hop.pala » Wed Dec 25, 2013 6:43 pm

so:

"One who conceives of the mirage-like world
That it does or does not exist
Is consequently ignorant.
When there is ignorance, one is not liberated. "

nagarjuna
hop.pala
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 3:48 am

Re: is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a

Postby smcj » Wed Dec 25, 2013 7:35 pm

I believe that "soul" and "self" are translations of the same idea. What is being denied is some aspect of your mind that does not change, is not subject to metamorphosis. This is not to say that there isn't continuity, just that the that which is continuous is always changing.
smcj
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a

Postby hop.pala » Wed Dec 25, 2013 7:42 pm

smcj wrote:I believe that "soul" and "self" are translations of the same idea. What is being denied is some aspect of your mind that does not change, is not subject to metamorphosis. This is not to say that there isn't continuity, just that the that which is continuous is always changing.


You not understand realy.


Aha atman can not be because its not budddhism then unatman hahahaha.
hop.pala
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 3:48 am

Re: is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a

Postby hop.pala » Wed Dec 25, 2013 7:46 pm

I say it again:
"The unborn Buddhadatu can not be born as self,but the alaya vijnana can be,but because it is dependent originated no self.(too)"
hop.pala
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 3:48 am

Re: is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a

Postby smcj » Wed Dec 25, 2013 8:24 pm

hop.pala wrote:I say it again:
"The unborn Buddhadatu can not be born as self,but the alaya vijnana can be,but because it is dependent originated no self.(too)"

Alaya vijnana is the "all-base" consciousness obscured by ignorance. Not all schools of Buddhism accept the idea of an all-base consciousness. But those that do accept the idea of an all-base consciousness say that reincarnation comes from lack of awareness and grasping. The all-base consciousness without the unawareness and grasping does not reincarnate.

"The unborn" has many different expressions; dharmadhatu, Dharmakaya, etc. By definition it never comes "into existence".

There's lots of discussion about this on other threads. Take a second and poke around a bit.
smcj
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a

Postby hop.pala » Wed Dec 25, 2013 8:32 pm

""The unborn" has many different expressions; dharmadhatu, Dharmakaya, etc. By definition it never comes "into existence""

Aha Dharmadatu can not comes in existence:What say buddha as enlightened :-it is freed
The really existence only the buddhadhatu
hop.pala
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 3:48 am

Re: is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Wed Dec 25, 2013 8:34 pm

Shentong vs. Rangtong

viewtopic.php?f=66&t=10864


Mind vs. Self

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=11728&hilit=rangtong+vs.+shentong

You could find literally hundreds of threads on here addressing the same thing.

The first link is long, but it summarizes most of the discussion on this subject i'e seen in the past year here, IMO
"Just as a lotus does not grow out of a well-levelled soil but from the mire, in the same way the awakening mind
is not born in the hearts of disciples in whom the moisture of attachment has dried up. It grows instead in the hearts of ordinary sentient beings who possess in full the fetters of bondage." -Se Chilbu Choki Gyaltsen
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

Re: is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a

Postby smcj » Wed Dec 25, 2013 8:39 pm

hop.pala wrote:""The unborn" has many different expressions; dharmadhatu, Dharmakaya, etc. By definition it never comes "into existence""

Aha Dharmadatu can not comes in existence:What say buddha as enlightened :-it is freed
The really existence only the buddhadhatu

You should look up Shentong in Wikipedia. That's sort of what that school of thought is all about. Other schools consider it heresy; buddhism polluted by Advaita Vedanta. So it may be the answer you are looking for and feel comfortable with, but it is not universally accepted--at all!.
Last edited by smcj on Wed Dec 25, 2013 8:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
smcj
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a

Postby hop.pala » Wed Dec 25, 2013 8:40 pm

The unborn Buddhadatu can not be born as self,but the alaya vijnana can be,but because it is dependent originated no self.(too)"

Only the unborn can be free the dependent originated can only stop and no more.
hop.pala
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 3:48 am

Re: is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a

Postby smcj » Wed Dec 25, 2013 8:45 pm

hop.pala wrote:The unborn Buddhadatu can not be born as self,but the alaya vijnana can be,but because it is dependent originated no self.(too)"

Only the unborn can be free the dependent originated can only stop and no more.

To simplify matters, the alaya jnana is the term for all-base consciousness without the unawareness. Alaya=base and jnana=wisdom. The prefix "vi" denotes unawareness or ignorance covering the wisdom. I believe the alaya jnana/all base consciousness is also said to be unborn.

So the all-base consciousness with unawareness means reincarnation.
The all-base consciousness without unawareness means liberation.

Or so I've been led to believe, and then only for the schools of thought that accept the premise of an all-base consciousness to begin with. Not all do, so for them the current discussion is meaningless.
Last edited by smcj on Wed Dec 25, 2013 8:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
smcj
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Wed Dec 25, 2013 8:47 pm

hop.pala wrote:The unborn Buddhadatu can not be born as self,but the alaya vijnana can be,but because it is dependent originated no self.(too)"

Only the unborn can be free the dependent originated can only stop and no more.



Buddhism definitely denies an unchanging, static self or essence that is somehow "unique" to the individual..which is what most people mean by "soul". Everything else is rangtong vs. shentong basically, near as I can tell.

Again I really encourage reading the threads I posted, they are pretty informative.
"Just as a lotus does not grow out of a well-levelled soil but from the mire, in the same way the awakening mind
is not born in the hearts of disciples in whom the moisture of attachment has dried up. It grows instead in the hearts of ordinary sentient beings who possess in full the fetters of bondage." -Se Chilbu Choki Gyaltsen
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

Re: is that true Buddhism does not deny the existence of a

Postby hop.pala » Wed Dec 25, 2013 8:48 pm

Nonon.Alaya vijnana is no unaware.Alaya vijnana is impotant basic for dead person.
hop.pala
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 3:48 am

Next

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Fruitzilla, LolCat and 15 guests

>