anatta

[Kalanchoe]

I'm wondering about the Mahayana view of a human soul.

I'm not asking "who is right?!" but it seems that the Theravada view says that there are only five skandhas, but no inherent, personal, and permanent soul.
Does Mahayana view humans as having a personal soul that is reborn?

Thanks

[Kim O'Hara]

No.

There are more complicated answers, of course, but let's start with the simple one.


Kim

[Queequeg]

Mahayana is even more thorough than the technical definition of anatta allows in that even the five skandhas are empty - no arising, no abiding, no perishing, no absence.

[Kalanchoe]

Ok, that makes sense in light of some things I have studied.

But in that case, there are other things that puzzle me.

1) The Buddha, upon enlightenment, could 'see' all of his previous existences- whether animal, human, spirit, etc. But in what sense were they 'him' in a former life or 'his' past existences?

2) Also, if one makes a vow, such as to work to bring all beings to enlightenment, as I understand a bodhisattva does, how will that vow 'stay with them' through their countless rebirths?

I have not studied Buddhism for more than a year, so I may be slow in understanding... please bear with me

[Tao]

Alaya is the answer.

The statements are simplifyed but they should read:

1) The Buddha, upon enlightenment, could 'see' all of the previous existences in his karmic continuum (Alaya)- whether animal, human, spirit, etc.

>But in what sense were they 'him' in a former life or 'his' past existences?

In the same sense that you are YOU, every morning you wake up. In no way but you remember some things and ... You are reborn...

2) Also, if one makes a vow, such as to work to bring all beings to enlightenment, as I understand a bodhisattva does, how will that vow 'stay with them' through their countless rebirths?

Stays on his karmic continuum (Alaya). In fact pure Mahasattva will have ONLY that as a seed in his karmic continuum, his only seed will be that. Rest of the continuum (Alaya) will be emptied. Ready for Nirvana except for one seed: the vow

[Queequeg]

Ok, that makes sense in light of some things I have studied.

But in that case, there are other things that puzzle me.

1) The Buddha, upon enlightenment, could 'see' all of his previous existences- whether animal, human, spirit, etc. But in what sense were they 'him' in a former life or 'his' past existences?

2) Also, if one makes a vow, such as to work to bring all beings to enlightenment, as I understand a bodhisattva does, how will that vow 'stay with them' through their countless rebirths?

I have not studied Buddhism for more than a year, so I may be slow in understanding... please bear with me

Adding to Tao's explanation -

Review - At this moment, if you carefully examine yourself, and by "yourself" we are talking about both the body and mind aspects, you will find no-self (anatman/anatta). Moreover, you will find that the component parts (skandhas) are also without "self", ie. irreducible reality. This is a quality we call emptiness (sunyata). This does not, however, reduce to annihilation. You are sitting there, reading this, so, emptiness clearly does not equal annihilation. Something is going on, though it defies articulation. Those on the Mahayana Buddhist path are concerned with perfectly knowing this aspect of reality, not merely ending the cycle of birth and death.

If we take a step back from the neutralizing gaze of insight into emptiness, we are able to discern something Real going on, appearing as various causes and conditions. When we re-engage insight into emptiness, we can again see these causes and conditions are the very basis that appears as emptiness. With the insight of emptiness, when we regard causes and conditions, we no longer see them naively as self-existent things, but rather we see these as tentative distinctions with expedient functions.

This applies to ourselves. When the Buddha looks back and sees his past lives, he sees how causes and conditions converged as his past functions. These functions, in the naiive absence of wisdom, he mistakenly perceived as a series of selves - but no longer.

At this moment, we are a nexus of causes and conditions which we can tentatively identify for the sake of convenience as we work out our various misconceptions toward a genuine experienced insight into the nature of our reality. When the mist of ignorance, ie, the misconception of an essential self, is fully lifted, the veil of life-and-death dissolves and we will be able to look on not just our past lives, but the whole of eternity as the unfolding of causes and conditions, AND as thoroughly empty of intrinsic existence.

As Tao points out, the highest level bodhisattvas are only a vow to liberate beings. I conceptualize it like approaching an infinitely large, knotted ball of yarn with the determination to unravel it by all possible means. There is no discernible reward except the liberation of beings trapped in their mistaken conceptions.

[Kalanchoe]

Yes, I see what you're saying.

So, the alaya associated with one set of five skandhas will be passed on at his death to be fulfilled and perpetuated by a newly born person who received the deceased person’s four immaterial skandhas?

Then, the alaya continues until the 'person' it is last associated with attains enlightenment, after which the alaya is gone since that 'person' neither causes nor is caused.

So, it seems that there is no reason for the Theravadin to be such unless he commits to seeking enlightenment in his lifetime, simply for the truth's sake, which he will exemplify and manifest, dispelling illusion in 'him.' But the reason to follow Mahayana is that one commits to liberate all beings, that ALL illusion be dispelled.
Thus, pursuit of/assent to truth and therefore opposition to illusion- even if that's not the best phrasing of it- must be the reason for commitment to the dharma.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Yes, I see what you're saying.

So, the alaya associated with one set of five skandhas will be passed on at his death to be fulfilled and perpetuated by a newly born person who received the deceased person’s four immaterial skandhas?

The person doesn’t receive skandhas, the person and the skandhas are indistinguishable, one and the same. They aren’t something you contain, but something you are, and mistakenly identify with. That is sort of the whole point with anatta.

[Queequeg]

Until bodhi (awakening), ignorance is what endures and appears as a being birth to birth. What endures is a mistaken apprehension until it is dispelled.

[Kalanchoe]

Queequeg, that's very interesting.

I had assumed that there are five skandhas, which have no essence- no permanent characteristics that distinguish them from others of the same skandhas (e.g. distinguishing one consciousness from another consciousness) and no character that makes them anything other than their raw elements.

Is this basically what you would say or are you saying that even what we perceive to be skandhas are neither something nor nothing?

[Queequeg]

Queequeg, that's very interesting.

I had assumed that there are five skandhas, which have no essence- no permanent characteristics that distinguish them from others of the same skandhas (e.g. distinguishing one consciousness from another consciousness) and no character that makes them anything other than their raw elements.

Is this basically what you would say or are you saying that even what we perceive to be skandhas are neither something nor nothing?

Take my comment with some skepticism. Its a gloss. I don't know if you can actually find that statement in a primary source. Basically, the round of rebirth is perpetuated because there is an unawareness about reality. See 12 Linked Chain of Causation.

I am physically not you, so we clearly do not share the material skandha. The non-material skandhas are not the same for everyone either. For instance, my sense of grogginess because I have not had coffee yet is unique to this mind-moment that "I" am experiencing. The skandhas that presently abide (or rather arise in succession, mind moment to mind moment) are unique to this mind moment - a sort of meta phenomena of the immediately present causes and conditions. For them to be the same for all beings, they would need to be the nexus of the same causes and conditions - but that's not possible; we would be talking about the same tentative entity. There are no generic skandha that could be shared either - that would posit something not dependent on causes and conditions and would rather be some sort of ideal which is not possible except as a mistaken conception of a self existent entity.

In Tripitaka abhidharma teachings they describe bhavanga, a consciousness between life and death that carries karma from the moment of death to the moment of rebirth. According to Xuangzhang at least, this is the alayavijnanana in the Yogacara scheme. If you're asking about the process of rebirth, the five skandhas scheme is not particularly helpful as these are a sort of metaphenomena of very subtle levels of consciousness. If you're interested in this you should study Abhidhamma for the Theravada explanation or Yogacara for a Mahayana model. Dzogchen teachings include some very interesting explanations that go beyond Yogacara. There may be other systems that I am not aware of. There are many very knowledgeable folks who frequent this board and who might have more leads to suggest.

[Kalanchoe]

Thank you, that is very helpful

[Johnny Dangerous]

Queequeg, that's very interesting.

I had assumed that there are five skandhas, which have no essence- no permanent characteristics that distinguish them from others of the same skandhas (e.g. distinguishing one consciousness from another consciousness) and no character that makes them anything other than their raw elements.

Is this basically what you would say or are you saying that even what we perceive to be skandhas are neither something nor nothing?

The nature of the skandhas isn’t really taken up much in Pali Suttas that I recall, they just are what they are. Once you get to the Mahayana they are established as empty, but still used as a model to describe constituents of a being, in a number of ways depending on the school, teaching, etc.

[Queequeg]

Queequeg, that's very interesting.

I had assumed that there are five skandhas, which have no essence- no permanent characteristics that distinguish them from others of the same skandhas (e.g. distinguishing one consciousness from another consciousness) and no character that makes them anything other than their raw elements.

Is this basically what you would say or are you saying that even what we perceive to be skandhas are neither something nor nothing?

The nature of the skandhas isn’t really taken up much in Pali Suttas that I recall, they just are what they are. Once you get to the Mahayana they are established as empty, but still used as a model to describe constituents of a being, in a number of ways depending on the school, teaching, etc.

Adding here - not all Buddhist teachings are wholly integrated with each other, even within an overriding tradition - Mahayana, or Theravada. Many overlap, or have almost nothing to do with each other. Madhyamaka and Yogacara, for instance, both are Mahayana, but there isn't an easy integration between the two systems and that tension was the source of a lot of argument. Taken discretely, within their perspectives and scopes, they have their internal logics. There are integrations that developed later, but for someone approaching these systems anew, trying to take them in at the same time and assuming they are integrated from the start will often lead to confusion. At more granular levels, consider the teachings on the 12 linked chain of causation and the five skandhas - they overlap. However, the 12 linked chain explains the rounds of rebirth while the 5 skandhas describe the individual sentient being. They're not quite exclusive, but their scopes and perspectives are different. Trying to force a complete and seamless integration can lead to misunderstandings. Its better to take various teachings as discrete models, especially in the beginning. Later, as the teachings are understood and mastered, a natural fluency comes about and one can easily move between them without confusion. Its like multi-lingual people who can fluently move between languages or even speak in novel creoles. We revere the masters who are able to do this with the teachings, and they often become the de facto founders of new traditions based on their genius syntheses.

[Kalanchoe]

Thank you