Soul vs Consciousness?

[Tenma]

What is the difference between these two terms? It’s always that Buddhists don’t believe in a soul, but how is the soul different from consciousness when there are practices such as transmitting the consciousness to Sukhavati as seen in Phowa? Doesn’t that sound much like sending the soul off to Christian heaven?

[tkp67]

As I see it from the perspective of the Lotus Sutra the soul is the definition of conscious as seen from the "human/god" realm. That is why I think the Abrahamic religions are open ended and mysterious, they are leading to Buddhism.

In the LS Shakyamuni captures the god realm and this as I interpret it was the reconciliation of Brahmanism to the pure consciousness from where it came. I believe part of the narrative is this is a feature of sentience.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

A "soul" is an inert (unchanging) discernible object.
Consciousness is not limited by such an inert object.

[Malcolm]

A "soul" is an inert (unchanging) discernible object.
Consciousness is not limited by such an inert object.

Well, actually, the Catholics define the soul as one's consciousness. Likewise, the Hindus, and some Buddhists around here, define consciousness as the atman (soul).

[Wayfarer]

The term 'soul' is not the equivalent of the Vedantic term 'ātman' which was rejected by the Buddha. The view of those who believe in the idea of a ‘permanent self’ is frequently expressed in terms such as this example from the Brahmajāla Sutta:

The self and the world are eternal, barren, steadfast as a mountain peak, set firmly as a post. And though these beings rush around, circulate, pass away and re-arise, but this remains eternally. (DN1.1.32)

The Alagaddūpama Sutta likewise criticizes those who think:

‘This is the self, this is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’ - this too he [i.e. ‘the eternalist’] regards thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’

Here, ‘this’ is that which ‘the eternalist’ believes is something durable, within which ‘beings rush around, circulate and re-arise’. This arises from the Vedic teaching of sat as ‘what really exists’ - something which is to be distinguished from asat, that which is illusory or unreal. Hence in this formulation, sat is what is ‘eternal, unchangeable, set firmly as a post’, and distinguishable from samsara or maya. Sat is conceived as ‘the essence of things’, both in general terms as Brahman and particular beings as ātman.

The Buddha neither denies nor affirms that there is a self (See Ananda Sutta) but says that 'everything arises as a result of dependent origination'. So the conception of an eternally-existent self which is apart from dependent origination is what is rejected. The Buddha's teaching is much more subtle than that.

However, I agree that the frequent expression 'the Buddha teaches there is no soul' is not quite correct either, insofar as this can be interpreted as materialism, i.e. that beings are simply subject to physical laws and there are no further consequences of karma beyond this temporal existence. That is the usual meaning of 'having no soul'.

But neither does the Buddha teach there is a soul. Really the word 'soul' is a term from Western cultural discourse and doesn't have an exact equivalent in the Buddhist lexicon, so it's mapped against ātman and then criticized on those grounds, but that is not quite correct.

[PadmaVonSamba]

It or an interesting distinction, because it really revolves around how one defines the individual experience. Some argue that the subtle consciousness described in Vajrayana is really just the Brahman notion of atman.

The difference, I think, is that the notion of a soul is like a blank surface, like a canvas, which has some innate quality that never changes, but experiences ignorance, the kleshas, karma, and so on. The Buddhist argument is that it’s precisely the opposite. The self doesn’t experience ignorance. Rather, it is ignorance that results in the experience of a self.
In this way, Mind is more like a mirror than a blank canvas. It isn’t even “blank” to begin with.
.
.

[Druniel]

The term 'soul' is not the equivalent of the Vedantic term 'ātman' which was rejected by the Buddha. The view of those who believe in the idea of a ‘permanent self’ is frequently expressed in terms such as this example from the Brahmajāla Sutta:

The self and the world are eternal, barren, steadfast as a mountain peak, set firmly as a post. And though these beings rush around, circulate, pass away and re-arise, but this remains eternally. (DN1.1.32)

The Alagaddūpama Sutta likewise criticizes those who think:

‘This is the self, this is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’ - this too he [i.e. ‘the eternalist’] regards thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’

Here, ‘this’ is that which ‘the eternalist’ believes is something durable, within which ‘beings rush around, circulate and re-arise’. This arises from the Vedic teaching of sat as ‘what really exists’ - something which is to be distinguished from asat, that which is illusory or unreal. Hence in this formulation, sat is what is ‘eternal, unchangeable, set firmly as a post’, and distinguishable from samsara or maya. Sat is conceived as ‘the essence of things’, both in general terms as Brahman and particular beings as ātman.

The Buddha neither denies nor affirms that there is a self (See Ananda Sutta) but says that 'everything arises as a result of dependent origination'. So the conception of an eternally-existent self which is apart from dependent origination is what is rejected. The Buddha's teaching is much more subtle than that.

However, I agree that the frequent expression 'the Buddha teaches there is no soul' is not quite correct either, insofar as this can be interpreted as materialism, i.e. that beings are simply subject to physical laws and there are no further consequences of karma beyond this temporal existence. That is the usual meaning of 'having no soul'.

But neither does the Buddha teach there is a soul. Really the word 'soul' is a term from Western cultural discourse and doesn't have an exact equivalent in the Buddhist lexicon, so it's mapped against ātman and then criticized on those grounds, but that is not quite correct.

Hi ,

Don't you agree that Buddha didn't enter in a philosophical way, ever, in these matter?
we can infere from His teaching that there's a Buddha atman, sort of, which is the one who goes through, so to say, Nirvana, and come back to teach, and the one who keeps his own identity and spiritual deeds, in the last 4 stages of riborths. For example, Vasubandhu talks about the ineffable Buddha atman in his 20 stanzas. Pugdalavadin tried to say something about this, which I don't think should be rejected in a dogmatic way, most of which is based on Theravada commentaries (beg pardon for my English)

[Malcolm]

Look, Hindus define the atman as consciousness; Catholics define the soul as one”s individual consciousness. The Hindus define jiva at a as ones personal consciousness— therefor soul = atman.

The term 'soul' is not the equivalent of the Vedantic term 'ātman' which was rejected by the Buddha. The view of those who believe in the idea of a ‘permanent self’ is frequently expressed in terms such as this example from the Brahmajāla Sutta:

The self and the world are eternal, barren, steadfast as a mountain peak, set firmly as a post. And though these beings rush around, circulate, pass away and re-arise, but this remains eternally. (DN1.1.32)

The Alagaddūpama Sutta likewise criticizes those who think:

‘This is the self, this is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’ - this too he [i.e. ‘the eternalist’] regards thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’

Here, ‘this’ is that which ‘the eternalist’ believes is something durable, within which ‘beings rush around, circulate and re-arise’. This arises from the Vedic teaching of sat as ‘what really exists’ - something which is to be distinguished from asat, that which is illusory or unreal. Hence in this formulation, sat is what is ‘eternal, unchangeable, set firmly as a post’, and distinguishable from samsara or maya. Sat is conceived as ‘the essence of things’, both in general terms as Brahman and particular beings as ātman.

The Buddha neither denies nor affirms that there is a self (See Ananda Sutta) but says that 'everything arises as a result of dependent origination'. So the conception of an eternally-existent self which is apart from dependent origination is what is rejected. The Buddha's teaching is much more subtle than that.

However, I agree that the frequent expression 'the Buddha teaches there is no soul' is not quite correct either, insofar as this can be interpreted as materialism, i.e. that beings are simply subject to physical laws and there are no further consequences of karma beyond this temporal existence. That is the usual meaning of 'having no soul'.

But neither does the Buddha teach there is a soul. Really the word 'soul' is a term from Western cultural discourse and doesn't have an exact equivalent in the Buddhist lexicon, so it's mapped against ātman and then criticized on those grounds, but that is not quite correct.

[Konchog Thogme Jampa]

There seems to be a Self but it isn't real, that's the main reason Samsara tends to go on a bit.

It's the fundamental thing to be defeated in Buddhism/Vajrayana

It likes to argue/compete win wars and create negative karma.

So we swim upstream in practice to overcome it.

[Wayfarer]

Catholics define the soul as one's individual consciousness. The Hindus define jiva at a as ones personal consciousness— therefore soul = atman.

I've never heard Catholicism, or traditional Catholicism, refer to the soul in terms of 'consciousness'. From the Catholic Catechism:

In Sacred Scripture the term "soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person. But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s2c1p6.htm

Which is cross-referenced to:

Endowed with "a spiritual and immortal" soul, the human person is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake." From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... 1.htm#1703

As far as 'nihilism and eternalism' is concerned, my view is that 'nihilism' basically refers to those who think that there's nothing beyond physical existence, that at the end of a life, the elements return from whence they come and there are no karmic consequences to actions in this life. This is what people in materialistic cultures believe, whether they consciously think about it or not (although they may also think that they 'live on' in their works and children and so on.)

I think 'eternalism' is the outlook of a culture in which reincarnation is accepted due to the existence of ascetics and sages who have memories of their previous lives. So I think it's a warning against the belief that the purpose of the Buddha's teaching is to secure rebirth in favourable circumstances in perpetuity, i.e. forever. Whereas the true aim of the Buddha's teaching is beyond re-birth, i.e. not to seek re-birth or believe that one can be re-incarnated in perpetuity or forever, by the right practices, etc.

This is pretty much in line with Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary on the Brahmajala Sutta. He comments that all of the 'wrong views' catalogued in the Brahmajala arise from either the desire not to exist (which leads to nihilism), or the desire to continue to exist (which leads to eternalism).

Vasubandhu talks about the ineffable Buddha atman...

Perhaps what is 'ineffable' ought also to be understood as 'usayable'. Speculative ideas about 'what rebirth means' is, I think, what is called prapañca, mental proliferation. At least that is my understanding.

[PadmaVonSamba]

The Buddha neither denies nor affirms that there is a self (See Ananda Sutta) but says that 'everything arises as a result of dependent origination'. So the conception of an eternally-existent self which is apart from dependent origination is what is rejected. The Buddha's teaching is much more subtle than that.

This is why I bring up the issue of beings having separate, individual experiences, and separate, individual karma (of course, ultimately all things are connected).
Is it not this uniqueness, itself, indicative of something? And if so, what? The fact that I am not you, and that
if I think to clap my hands I can, but if I think to clap your hands, nothing happens, that there is some kind of cause for us to have different thoughts, experiences and karma?

One who asserts a ‘soul’ can ascribe the distinctions to each being having its own soul. I’m
Me, you are you, and ultimately it is because we each have a unique soul or atman that we are who we are, feel what we feel, and so on.

But to what does the Buddhist ascribe the cause for any distinction to arise? Why are we all not simply thinking the exact same thought all at the same time, the way 30 TV sets for sale at a department store all display the same images and sounds?
.
.
.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

A "soul" is an inert (unchanging) discernible object.
Consciousness is not limited by such an inert object.

Well, actually, the Catholics define the soul as one's consciousness. Likewise, the Hindus, and some Buddhists around here, define consciousness as the atman (soul).

"Atman" has an element that doesn't change. Consciousness is infinitely changeable.

My understanding is that it boils down to "continuity" and "consistency". Consciousness is continuous, but there's nothing to limit its expression. In samsara that means it can be reborn as anything whatsoever. In Buddhahood that means limitless expression as Buddha Activity.

So people that define "soul" as continuity see consciousness as a "soul". But "atman" has an element of unchanging essence.

The previous Kalu R. used the example of a being having successive incarnations as an elephant, a bird, and then a fish. If there was a carryover of the elephant to the bird, the bird would be too heavy to fly. If there was a carryover of the bird to the fish, the fish would drown. So there is no "consistency" to the process, and therefore consciousness is not an "atman".

Anyway that's how I understand the discussion.

[PadmaVonSamba]

My understanding is that each thought moment immediately gives rise to the next thought moment, like a row of dominoes, each toppling the next.
The reason why we have an experience of a continuous self, rather than a strobe-light experience of rapidly occurring but separate thoughts, it’s like frames on motion picture film that stop for 1/24 of a second but flicker by in such rapid succession so as to create the illusion of continuous movement.
.
.
.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

My understanding is that each thought moment immediately gives rise to the next thought moment, like a row of dominoes, each toppling the next.
The reason why we have an experience of a continuous self, rather than a strobe-light experience of rapidly occurring but separate thoughts, it’s like frames on motion picture film that stop for 1/24 of a second but flicker by in such rapid succession so as to create the illusion of continuous movement.

I think that's the Shravakayana view. If I'm not mistaken, "tantra" mean thread or continuity.

[Malcolm]

For surely there is something which in its turn "appropriates" the passing thought itself and the entire stream of past and future thoughts as well, viz. the self-conscious, self-asserting "I" the substantial ultimate of our mental life. To be in this sense "monarch of all it surveys" in introspective observation and reflective self-consciousness, to appropriate without itself being appropriated by anything else, to be the genuine owner of a certain limited section of reality (the stream of consciousness), this is to be a free and sovereign (though finite) personality, a self-conscious, spiritual substance in the language of Catholic metaphysics.

http://www.newadvent.org/utility/search ... =FORID%3A9

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

...to appropriate without itself being appropriated by anything else, to be the genuine owner of a certain limited section of reality (the stream of consciousness), this is to be a free and sovereign (though finite) personality, a self-conscious, spiritual substance in the language of Catholic metaphysics.

This is what I understand the Shravakayana and subsequent Mahayana doctrines reject as unaware and incorrect assumptions.

“Personality” is the current configuration of karmas that format fundamental energies (Buddha Nature), a confinement of those energies tha necessitate dukkha. It is not the essence of a being. Its more like a tangle in a rope that makes the rope unmanageable. Just as a rope can be untangles a mind stream can be freed from the illusion of self.

Liberation is a release from than confinement and subsequent spontaneous expression of those Buddha Nature energies as Buddha Activity.

Or so it seems to me at this point in time.

[Malcolm]

...to appropriate without itself being appropriated by anything else, to be the genuine owner of a certain limited section of reality (the stream of consciousness), this is to be a free and sovereign (though finite) personality, a self-conscious, spiritual substance in the language of Catholic metaphysics.

This is what I understand the Shravakayana and subsequent Mahayana doctrines reject as unaware and incorrect assumptions.

“Personality” is the current configuration of karmas that format fundamental energies, a confinement of those energies. It is not the essence of a being. Liberation is a release from than confinement and subsequent spontaneous expression of those energies as Buddha Activity.

Or so it seems to me at this point in time.

I was simply pointing out how the largest Christian denomination in the world in world defines the word "soul." Their definition lines up perfectly with the atman refuted by the Buddha.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

...to appropriate without itself being appropriated by anything else, to be the genuine owner of a certain limited section of reality (the stream of consciousness), this is to be a free and sovereign (though finite) personality, a self-conscious, spiritual substance in the language of Catholic metaphysics.

This is what I understand the Shravakayana and subsequent Mahayana doctrines reject as unaware and incorrect assumptions.

“Personality” is the current configuration of karmas that format fundamental energies, a confinement of those energies. It is not the essence of a being. Liberation is a release from than confinement and subsequent spontaneous expression of those energies as Buddha Activity.

Or so it seems to me at this point in time.

I was simply pointing out how the largest Christian denomination in the world in world defines the word "soul." Their definition lines up perfectly with the atman refuted by the Buddha.

I agree.

[PadmaVonSamba]

How would one argue that the subtle consciousness referred to in Vajrayana, the one experiencing the bardo state and taking rebirth, how would one argue that this isn’t just another way of asserting some concept of a soul or atman, some kind of permanent self?
.
.
.

[Malcolm]

How would one argue that the subtle consciousness referred to in Vajrayana, the one experiencing the bardo state and taking rebirth, how would one argue that this isn’t just another way of asserting some concept of a soul or atman, some kind of permanent self?
.
.
.

Well, because even the subtle consciousness, the mind of clear light in Geluk jargon, is relative and compounded.