Is there a Soul in Buddhism?

by **caveman** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:31 pm

The practice of Buddhism is an illusion wish replaces other illusions.
For most sentient beings it is a necessary illusion.
But ultimately just another illusion.

At a certain point we must go beyond buddhism.

Stripping everything from Buddhism and Hinduism you have the transmigration of the soul, PERIOD.

No bells, dorjes, trumpets, chants or songs, just the transmigration of the soul.

Just you the Bardo.

by **Malcolm** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:46 pm

caveman wrote:
Stripping everything from Buddhism and Hinduism you have the transmigration of the soul, PERIOD.

There is no soul, person, atman, sattva, jiva, you name it -- it does not exist.

by **caveman** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:18 pm

Namdrol wrote:
caveman wrote:
Stripping everything from Buddhism and Hinduism you have the transmigration of the soul, PERIOD.

There is no soul, person, atman, sattva, jiva, you name it -- it does not exist.

Here we go again with there is no this and there is no that. :spy:

Try to do better than this old dog breakfast story.

You hold the secret tell us what does EXIST. :zzz:

by **Enochian** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:13 am

caveman wrote:You hold the secret tell us what does EXIST.

There is a discrepancy between thoughtforms ("appearances") and reality.

Read "The Middle Way" by the Dalai Lama. It will answer your questions.

by **adinatha** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:18 am

caveman wrote:The practice of Buddhism is an illusion wish replaces other illusions.
For most sentient beings it is a necessary illusion.
But ultimately just another illusion.

At a certain point we must go beyond buddhism.

Stripping everything from Buddhism and Hinduism you have the transmigration of the soul, PERIOD.

No bells, dorjes, trumpets, chants or songs, just the transmigration of the soul.

Just you the Bardo.

The point of Buddhism is that illusions are recognized as illusions. You claim there is a soul. Show me. You think telling Buddhists to believe in a soul is some kind of new invention? :rolling:

by **Enochian** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:23 am

Hi caveman,

To add to what Adinatha is saying, Mādhyamaka (the bottomline understanding of buddhism) does not make any claims therefore has none to defend. Accordingly, sunyata is merely a negation ( a non-implicative negation to be precise).

by **plwk** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:37 am

Greetings caveman,
What is a soul? What is transmigration? In your understanding?

by **Fu Ri Shin** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:12 am

Subscribing to notions of existence and non-existence keep one in samsara, numerous Buddhist texts tell us.

by **LastLegend** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:32 am

Remember to practice folks don't get lost in these words. Some folks say that everything is an illusion and empty, no need to practice and such. Everyday they rehearsh such thought in their head. Then there are others who try to reach emptiness through thinking or philosophizing.

by **Caz** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:13 pm

Those who believe in the Atman(or Soul) would say the Soul is existent Independent of other phenomena however a Buddhist would say that what others call the Soul is but a compilation of Ignorance, Mental aggregates and previous imprints, Non of which have any Inherent existence. Generally speaking to affirm the Inherent existence of any Dependant related phenomena pushes the boundary more into Satantadharma rather then Buddhadharma.

by **kirtu** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:50 pm

caveman wrote:The practice of Buddhism is an illusion wish replaces other illusions.
For most sentient beings it is a necessary illusion.
But ultimately just another illusion.

At a certain point we must go beyond buddhism.

Stripping everything from Buddhism and Hinduism you have the transmigration of the soul, PERIOD.

No bells, dorjes, trumpets, chants or songs, just the transmigration of the soul.

Just you the Bardo.

What is this soul you speak of? An unchanging essence? Doesn't exist.

Thurman said a couple of years ago that of course Buddhism taught a soul. Just not like westerners would readily recognize.

The issue is, as Trungpa Rinpoche said, what transmigrates are your bad habits. He was being gentle.

We can conventionally say that the mind moves from one guesthouse of a body to another. That is real from an experiential standpoint. However this mind is obscured and defiled by habit, by ignorance, greed and aversion/aggression.

Kirt

by **kirtu** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:53 pm

Enochian wrote:Mādhyamaka (the bottomline understanding of buddhism) ...

Madhyamaka - the bottomline understanding of Buddhism ???? Most days I like my tea more Mind-Only minted .... ummm - Mind-Only insighted tea .... minty fresh ......

Kirt

by **Keshin** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 6:01 pm

Is there a Soul in Buddhism?

It may be worth you checking out the texts of Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen.

Kunchen Dolpopa-la was not afraid of using the terms of ātman ("Self").

Also, please considering reading the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. There are some interesting verses within it which may be of interest to you:

"Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed 'the Self' [atman]. This is as in the case of the great Doctor who well understands the milk medicine. The same is the case with the Tathagata. For the sake of beings, he says "there is the Self in all things" O you the four classes! Learn Dharma thus!"

"“Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! Is there Self in the 25 existences or not?" The Buddha said: "O good man! "Self" means "Tathagatagarbha" [Buddha-Womb, Buddha-Embryo, Buddha-Nature]. Every being has Buddha-Nature. This is the Self. Such Self has, from the very beginning, been under cover of innumerable defilements. That is why man cannot see it."

"So-called 'Emptiness' is neither viewed as Emptiness nor as non-Emptiness. The wise perceive Emptiness and non-Emptiness, the Eternal [nitya] and the Impermanent [anitya], Suffering [duhkha] and Bliss [sukha], Self [atman] and non-Self [anatman]. The Empty is the totality of samsara, and the non-Empty is Great Nirvana; non-Self is samsara, and the Self is Great Nirvana [maha-nirvana]. To perceive the Emptiness of everything and not to perceive non-Emptiness is not termed the Middle Way; to perceive the non-Self of everything and not to perceive the Self is not termed the Middle Way. The Middle Way is termed the Buddha-dhatu. For this reason, the Buddha-dhatu is eternal and unchanging. Because beings are enveloped in ignorance, they are unable to perceive it."

I personally don't see a difference between Tathāgathagarbha/Buddha-Dhatu and many forms of Ātman. I personally would not follow a form of Buddhism which believes there was nothing innate within us. I am aware that there can be different conceptions of ātman and soul, though, and the ātman of many modern Hindus was not as common as in the past, and many conceptions of soul fall into a sort of Abrahamic thought, which I don't think really works with Buddhism too well.

Just this fool's opinion, but I don't expect anyone else to adhere to it. :smile:

by **Enochian** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:04 pm

Buddha nature is only the POTENTIAL to become a Buddha, just like milk can become butter.

Thus Western fools mostly misunderstand "Buddha nature".

by **Keshin** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:15 pm

Enochian wrote:Thus Western fools mostly misunderstand "Buddha nature".

I'm sure.

by **Madeliaette** » Sun May 01, 2011 10:04 am

Buddha nature is only the POTENTIAL to become a Buddha, just like milk can become butter.

Learning is churning..... :rolling:

by **Dechen Norbu** » Mon May 02, 2011 4:34 pm

Enochian wrote:Buddha nature is only the POTENTIAL to become a Buddha, just like milk can become butter.

Thus Western fools mostly misunderstand "Buddha nature".

That would be in common Mahayana, not Vajrayana.

by **Pero** » Mon May 02, 2011 9:22 pm

How does one explain the Buddhist view on reincarnation in simple terms without a soul?

by **conebeckham** » Mon May 02, 2011 10:56 pm

When you light a new candle from a burning candle stub, by holding the flame of the burning soon-to-be-burned-out stub next to the wick of the new candle, just as the stub goes out, is the flame of the new candle the same as the flame of the old candle?

We can say there is a "cause and effect" relationship at work here, but we cannot point to anything in the nature of the flame, or in either candle, that is unchanging and uniquely defining. Nonetheless, there is some continuum of energy or heat which was "passed" from the stub to the new candle....though that energy or heat can't be isolated.

Rebirth is the same.

by **Pero** » Mon May 02, 2011 11:12 pm

conebeckham wrote:When you light a new candle from a burning candle stub, by holding the the flame of the burning soon-to-be-burned-out stub next to the wick of the new candle, just as the stub goes out, is the flame of the new candle the same as the flame of the old candle?

We can say there is a "cause and effect" relationship at work here, but we cannot point to anything in the nature of the flame, or in either candle, that is unchanging and uniquely defining. Nonetheless, there is some continuum of energy or heat which was "passed" from the stub to the new candle....though that energy or heat can't be isolated.

Rebirth is the same.

Thanks! How would you make an example for Hindu reincarnation?