Does the Bön tradition believe we have a self/soul?

[tomdzogchen27]

I have seen that there are many similar concepts between Buddhism and Bön. Nevertheless I was wondering, does the Bön tradition posit that we have individual souls? I saw that Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche has a book called 'The true source of healing' which speaks of 'Soul retrieval'. If he does indeed speak of individual souls, how does that fit in the Dzogchen view? Thanks!

[GrapeLover]

I don’t have the deepest understanding, but the soul in question definitely isn’t what the word implies in English; it’s basically the ‘vitality’ of the Five Elements within an individual. This can become damaged or imbalanced through trauma and illness etc and thereby adversely affect the life force.

“Soul retrieval” basically refers to restoring this ‘vitality’, as opposed to, for example, calling back a part of a “self” which has wandered off. Though the latter concept is present in some western shamanism and New Age stuff I’ve come across.

There is also “soul ransoming” in Bön which is when effigies etc are used to satisfy entities that are sapping your elemental energy so that they stop and you get it back.

But the elements disperse at death etc and are just part of your conditioned existence.

“Soul” is translating “la” here for what it’s worth, but I don’t have any insight into how the word “la” is used otherwise.

[Malcolm]

I have seen that there are many similar concepts between Buddhism and Bön. Nevertheless I was wondering, does the Bön tradition posit that we have individual souls? I saw that Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche has a book called 'The true source of healing' which speaks of 'Soul retrieval'. If he does indeed speak of individual souls, how does that fit in the Dzogchen view? Thanks!

This has been discussed before. The concept under discussion is called in Tibetan bla 'gug.

The term bla does not correspond to what we understand by the term "soul" in English. The term has a fairly wide range of meanings in Tibetan, but in this context it refers to the life-force sustaining energy of a person.

[Shako]

Below is a fairly recent lecture on this topic from Dmitry Ermakov, a long time Bon practitioner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEfn7vKaBDw

[Varis]

But the elements disperse at death etc and are just part of your conditioned existence.

The bLa lingers after death and acts like a sentient spirit AFAIK.

[Malcolm]

But the elements disperse at death etc and are just part of your conditioned existence.

The bLa lingers after death and acts like a sentient spirit AFAIK.

This is because among common people, there is an ambiguity between bla and consciousness. Barbara Gerke has perhaps one of the best summaries I've yet read:

The meaning of bla evolves from the notion of what could be rendered
into English as ‘subtle life essence’,7 but is in fact more complex
considering the internal and external manifestations of bla, as well as
the shamanic and Buddhist historical influences that have shaped body
concepts, perception and ritual practices in the Himalayan enclaves.
Tibetan-English dictionaries offer a variety of translations for bla.8
Apart from the literal meaning ‘higher’ or ‘above’, the most commonly
adopted form of translation is ‘soul’.9 I find the translation of bla as
‘soul’, especially in anthropological works, to be unsatisfactory for several
reasons. Firstly, the notion of ‘soul’ is strongly rooted in Western
religious thought and does not reflect the numerous cultural meanings
that bla has acquired in Buddhist and non-Buddhist contexts among
Himalayan communities. Secondly, ‘soul loss’ is an anthropological
invention of the early 20th century that had appeared while studying the
temporary absence of some unidentified life force among certain cultures.
10 Thirdly, bla has most commonly been translated as ‘soul’ probably
because the European connotation of a subtle body that is capable
of leaving the coarse body has survived most prominently in the
Platonic notion of the ‘psyche’.11 Another viewpoint to be considered
also is that

the subtle body has been one of the hardest concepts in Buddhist and
Hindu thought for Westerners to appreciate, perhaps because it implies a
lack of separation between ‘body’ and ‘mind’, which Western science
has had difficulty in accepting (Samuel 1993b: 237).

I am not suggesting here that bla is the same as the Indian Tantric concept
of the subtle body, but only that a certain ethnocentrism within
North American and European intellectual circles has led to a misunderstanding
of the concepts of the body and its subtle physiologies
found among other cultures, which in turn may have supported the
translation of bla as ‘soul’.

Gerke, Barbara. (2007). Engaging the subtle body: Re-approaching bla rituals in the Himalayas.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Himalayas

[Varis]

This is because among common people, there is an ambiguity between bla and consciousness.

I assume by common people you mean Tibetan/Himalayan folk beliefs, right?

I thought it was sort of like the fantasy concept of a "shade". A lingering bit of the person that acts like them, but isn't really "them".

[heart]

This is because among common people, there is an ambiguity between bla and consciousness.

I assume by common people you mean Tibetan/Himalayan folk beliefs, right?

I thought it was sort of like the fantasy concept of a "shade". A lingering bit of the person that acts like them, but isn't really "them".

common people = westerners (who have a culture of a deep belief in a soul)

/magnus

[Varis]

common people = westerners (who have a culture of a deep belief in a soul)

/magnus

Ah. I got confused because I read the full article and it mentioned how some Tibetans and Himalayans do make such a distinction.

[Malcolm]

I assume by common people you mean Tibetan/Himalayan folk beliefs, right?

Yes.