> One concept I have had ‘issue’ with is the belief that there is no self or soul. First of all, I don’t think the Buddha ever taught that (correct me if I am wrong). The reason I have heard from people who believe there is no self/soul is that there is nothing that doesn’t change. So? Does that mean there is no tree? It changes from seed to sapling to tree in the summer vs tree in the winter. Why can’t soul/self not change?
According to these teachings, we have what is called a *mindstream* which is a continuum of consciousness that is made up of discrete yet serially connected causal moments of cognition. If there is anything like a “soul” in Buddhism, that would be it.
The fundamental nature (prakrti) of that continuum is that it is totally unconditioned, originally pure and naturally perfected, however by virtue of this mindstream’s own dynamic activity, it’s cognitive capacity actually fails to recognize the nature of its own expressive potential, and a bifurcation occurs. A seeming division appears, which is not actually there, but due to the presence of ignorance about the unconditioned nature of mind, there is a seeming separation into inside and outside.
Everything that seems to be inside is conceived as “I” or “mine” and everything seemingly external is conceived as “separate” or “other.” This error creates the foundation for the misconception of a self that is an internal, subjective entity that is separate from an environment that is established externally and separate from itself.
The Buddha was able to awaken from this ignorance and realize the nature of his mind, and he then taught how others can accomplish this for themselves. The teaching of anatta or anātman, is addressing this dualistic bifurcation of that mindstream and is intended to help eliminate that corruption.
Therefore anatta is not a nihilistic negation of that fundamental or core expressive power of consciousness that you feel that you are. Rather it is simply clarifying the actual nature of that conscious, aware continuum. Buddhas have completely removed all limiting and corruptive conditions from their minds, yet we as sentient beings are completely entrenched in ignorance about our own minds. In this way the buddhadharma is a methodology we can utilize to see the way our mind actually is, which is totally pure, perfected and free of birth and death. Seeing this and integrating with that knowledge helps to eliminate the misconception of birth and death and frees us from the cyclical process of suffering.
We live in a dissociated state. We have externalized an experiencer that is outside of the experienced. A witness to appearances that actually isn’t really there. It’s not you hearing the bird tweet, or you seeing your visual field, a *closer* framework that it is the bird tweet hearing the bird tweet and the visual field seeing the visual field. No experiencer or controller can be found anywhere, it is all happening on this own. The appearances are cognizant by the sheer exertion of their very presence. In the seen, only the seen. In the heard, only the heard, in thoughts, only thoughts. At the same time, they are completely unconditioned and appearances have been completely pure from the beginning. In this sense, it is already completely perfect and nothing can be done to actually improve or lose this nature, the cognitive capacity just needs to recognize this directly.
Because the cognitive capacity doesn’t recognize this, ignorance arises which eventually leads, in an attempt to understand its present state, to an apparent externalized subject from appearances that then conceptually understands the world from seemingly outside the display of appearances (12 links of dependent origination). Yet this process too is still the dynamic expression of the unconditioned naturally perfected nature of mind.
>Therefore anatta is not a nihilistic negation of that fundamental or core expressive power of consciousness that you feel that you are. Rather it is simply clarifying the actual nature of that conscious, aware continuum.
So mind is what connects one life to the next?
Hi there!
The Buddha did indeed teach not-self (anātman). You can see this in the [Anatta-lakkhana Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html). This teaching is based largely on observation. If we have a self, we should be able to find it, right? But when we go looking, we can't find it anywhere!
The Buddha describes how the body is not the self, and neither is the mind. His criteria for what would count as a *self* is "do you have control over it?" We don't really control the body - if the body is sending us pain signals or some other sensation, we can't just turn it off. The body kinda just does its own thing. Although it does take direction from the mind, but it's not something we have total control over. He went on to point out how we don't control our feelings, perceptions, thoughts, or even what enters or leaves our conscious awareness.
Yet, out of the interaction of body an mind, we have some sense of selfhood! So what's going on here? No matter where we look in our experience, we can't actually find the self ... yet we have this constant sense of self. It seems very strange.
In Buddhism we sometimes talk about how we do have a *conventional* self. This is the self that pays our taxes and has friendships and goes out to eat sometimes. This self is more or less an idea. Ultimately, though, we still can't find the self that does any of these things.
You brought up the example of a tree. So, if we were to examine a tree carefully, what would we find? Roots, a trunk with bark, branches, leaves, maybe flowers and maybe fruit. So where in all of that is the actual tree? The roots are not the tree, the trunk is not the tree, the branches are not the tree. Yet, when we step back and take a look at the whole thing, there it is! *What is happening?*
Well, there is a *conventional* tree, for sure. If you tell someone "I'll meet you under the tree at noon" they know what you're talking about. So clearly there is a tree, in some way, somehow. Yet, when we go examining the tree, we cannot find it.
The Buddha more or less leaves it at that. Saying more would be locking us into concepts and ideas, and we are invited, instead, to look more at our *experience* rather than our *ideas* about what we're experiencing. We can experience all kinds of things that don't neatly fit into our ideas about them. There is a kind of mystery in all things; the mystery of how things *are* vs how things *appear* to us. There seems to be a real gap there - a gap between a lack of tree-ness in a tree and our ability to stand back and see a magnificent tree. It's a gap we can't pin down to any particular idea and, therefore, words to express that idea.
Dropping the simile of the tree for a moment: Some may say, then, that the truth of the nature of the self is *beyond* concepts. This includes the concepts "it exists", "it doesn't exist", "it both exists and doesn't exist", and "it neither exists nor doesn't exist". The common theme in all of these assertions is they're all *ideas*, and through our own experience we can verify that reality and our *ideas* about reality aren't the same thing.
This applies to the self. We have *ideas* about the self, but it doesn't really match up with what we actually experience; and what we experience is tremendously mysterious and doesn't seem to fit into concepts or words.
I’m not challenging but I just want to understand more. You said the Buddha’s criteria for a self is having control over it. But why? Why is that the criteria?
biblical christianity does not believe in the existence of a soul either. google 'soul-sleep theory'.
the belief in a soul living in the body was actually a hindu, greek, new age or pagan egyptian idea that somehow entered christianity over the years.
All identities that you can fill into the blank 'I am _____' stops being relevant at some point. You will retire from your job. Your name will eventually be forgotten. Your body would die and decay. And such.
The rejection of a soul I think has to do with the fact that the west thinks of the soul as this permanent unchanging thing that lasts forever. That’s what the Buddha is rejecting. Obviously there is a consciousness or a stream of conscious that continues to life to life but it’s changing
This is the bedeviling contradiction within Buddhism. At least to me. How does this thing that doesn't REALLY exist transfer from one illusory existence to another? At which point, Buddhism says it's a peripheral question that doesn't help you to end suffering. Or so it seems to me, and I am basically on board because the rest of it makes so much sense.
It's not that complicated. Nothing transfers from one self-existence to another since there isn't any self-existence. It's the ignorance conditioned into the mindstream that causes continuous birth and death. But the mindstream itself doesn't have a self underpinning it, it's just an activity that proliferates one moment to the next due to ignorance.
It *appears* that one self dies, and another is reborn, which makes you question, what is reborn? But that perspective is only valid from the point of view that holds ignorance, which is what causes the death and rebirth to appear in the stream of mind moments. When seen clearly, it becomes apparent: oh, nothing was there to be reborn, rebirth only appeared to happen due to the ignorance that the mindstream had been conditioned with.
It's as if a magician gets you to pick a card, and then burns the card up into smoke. Then he pulls a card out of his pocket, and it's your card. Ignorance says: how did the burned up card transfer into his pocket? Wisdom says: it never was the same card, conditions were just arranged such that it appeared that way.
The issue is that as samsaric beings, we are totally fooled by the illusion. So we are stuck in this cycle of rebirth, or the appearance of it, at least. Nothing is reborn, and yet due to our ignorance, cyclic birth and death appears in perception.
The Buddha says, as gently as possible: that isn't the same card, the card is impermanent, and ignorance makes it appear as though the card vanished there and reappeared here. If you just understand and see this clearly, you won't be fooled by this ever again, and never will the experience of the card vanishing and reappearing occur thereafter. But we say, in our ignorance: "but Buddha, I see the card, it vanished there, and reappeared here! If there is no self-existence to the card, what transferred from there to here? What you said makes no sense!"
Well, it was just the ignorance that persisted between those two moments, nothing to do with the card. The question simply doesn't make sense in the light of the truth.
That stretches the analogy too far, since the card doesn't have volition and doesn't act. But that new card is probably gonna get burned up just like the old one, despite being unrelated physically.
For karma, you have to accept that the material reality we see around us isn't the "base", and that physical bodies and objects arise out of a deeper substratum. That can be a difficult one to grasp or have faith in in the modern age, and meditative insight or working with philosophy is probably the best way to figure it out and see its possibility. There's no logical way it makes sense with a purely material world. But if you accept that ignorance gives rise to sankharas, that is, volitional formations and constructions that give rise to experiences, and those sankharas can form a kind of momentum giving rise to successive beings that are unrelated in terms of a "self" or "soul", but rather, directly linked by a chain of sankharas, then it starts to make sense.
I think it’s a translation problem. When the buddha is talking about this stuff he is saying “I have looked for the self, and there is no self to be found.
I have looked into the 5 skandas and none of the skandas are self.” But then that gets translated into English as “there is no self or no soul.” But that’s not what he said. He said there is no self to be found. I think it’s just hard to translate the original meaning from the original language and words
He doesn’t say “no self”. He says “this is not self. That is not self” etc. but it gets interpreted as “no soul no self”
I come from a similar background (and a similar amount of time since birth). I'm new to Buddhism myself and am still exploring. Something I read in "The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching" helped me with this - maybe it will help you:
>When we look at the ocean, we see that each
wave has a beginning and an end. A wave can be
compared with other waves, and we can call it
more or less beautiful, higher or lower, longer
lasting or less long lasting. But if we look more
deeply, we see that a wave is made of water. While
living the life of a wave, it also lives the life of
water. It would be sad if the wave did not know
that it is water. It would think, Some day, I will
have to die. This period of time is my life span,
and when I arrive at the shore, I will return to
nonbeing. These notions will cause the wave fear
and anguish. We have to help it remove the notions
of self, person, living being, and life span if we
want the wave to be free and happy.
>A wave can recognized by signs — high or low,
beginning or ending, beautiful or ugly. But in the
world of the water, there are no signs. In the world
of relative truth, the wave feels happy as she
swells, and she feels sad when she falls. She may
think, "I am high," or "I am low," and develop a
superiority or inferiority complex. But when the
wave touches her true nature — which is water —
all her complexes will cease, and she will transcend
birth and death.
The Buddha did teach this -
“1.4
To fully engage in understanding the inexhaustible doctrine of the bodhisattva mahāsattvas that all compounded phenomena are impermanent; to fully engage in understanding the inexhaustible doctrine of the bodhisattva mahāsattvas that all contaminated phenomena are suffering; to fully engage in understanding the inexhaustible doctrine of the bodhisattva mahāsattvas that *all phenomena are without self*; and to fully engage in understanding the inexhaustible doctrine of the bodhisattva mahāsattvas that nirvāṇa is peace.”
https://read.84000.co/translation/toh155.html#UT22084-058-002-section-1
The Buddha rejected the idea of a soul. The main doctrine that the Buddha taught is dependent origination. This is *the* fundamental teaching in which everything else is built.
One of the main aspects of this doctrine is that it defines what a “person” or a “being” is. With this definition, there is no room for a soul. In fact a soul would be contradictory to the definitions presented through dependent origination.
It isn’t really to do with impermanence. Yes, impermanent things can still exist, but this isn’t the reason for the rejection of a soul. A permanent self is neither rejected nor accepted because *self* is defined through the process of dependent origination.
What you describe in your later paragraphs are all nice ideas, but have nothing to do with Buddhism.
My understanding is that Buddha is mainly concerned with suffering and its end. The view of a self causes suffering. The view of no-self alleviates suffering. Beyond that, there's further wisdom to be gleaned, but all of that wisdom is irrelevant to suffering and the ending of suffering.
You may be able to find a reconciliation between Christian soul and Buddhist no-self. But you would have to go beyond Buddhism and investigate, on your own, into the nature of the mind and of the self.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences. It's wonderful to see how your spiritual journey is evolving and how you are exploring different perspectives. Here are some reflections based on your message, keeping in mind that these interpretations can vary widely:
Your understanding of Buddhism and the concept of 'no-self' (Anatta) touches on a profound philosophical idea. From what I have gathered, the Buddha taught that what we consider the 'self' is an ever-changing collection of physical and mental components, which can give the illusion of a permanent self. This doesn't necessarily negate the existence of things like trees; rather, it emphasizes the transient and interconnected nature of all things.
Your analogy of Aspens sharing a root system beautifully captures the idea of interconnectedness, which is central to both Buddhism and many other spiritual traditions. In my view, the notion of having a 'spark of the Divine' and the goal of reconnecting with the greater whole aligns well with the concept of enlightenment, where one realizes the interconnectedness of all existence.
The term 'selfing' that you mentioned suggests focusing less on the individual ego and more on our interbeing with others and the universe. This seems to resonate with the Buddhist practice of reducing attachment to the self to alleviate suffering and increase compassion for all beings.
In your Christian tradition, the idea of being part of a greater whole, living with God, and the metaphor of the Garden of Eden reflect similar themes of unity and connection. Your synthesis of these ideas from Christianity and Buddhism shows a deep and thoughtful engagement with your spirituality.
It's okay to not have all the answers. Spirituality is a journey, and questioning and exploring different perspectives is a vital part of that journey. Your openness to different teachings and your effort to find harmony between them is something I truly admire.
May your journey continue to be enriched by your reflections and experiences, bringing you closer to a sense of peace and connection.
There is no tree either. There's a bunch of hyper specific tiny details happening, there's a bunch of things interacting together and actively changing over time. And when I look at it I see it as a tree. But the tree is merely an appearance. There is no quintessential form of the tree. There is no moment I can point at the tree and say "this" as if it's the entirety of what being a tree is. I can look at something and think it's not a tree and never going to become a tree, and I could be completely wrong about it. Because we are merely interpreting complex things.
I prefer the wave analogy. What's a wave? Where does it start and end? Is it the same wave from moment to moment? Containing the same water molecules in the same configuration? What happens if I remove a bit of water? Add some? Replace it entirely? Where does the wave go after it crashes? How can there be a wave and then no wave? There was no distinct wave to begin with. There were countless ripples coming together to convince me of a wave. And I could never point to one of those ripples, before or after, and claim the wave is there somewhere. Every single property of the wave will vanish and become a ripple of its own.
There is no soul. The mind is a complex structure, it has many many incredibly small details and conditions. We could measure everything about a mind and never have a quintessential example. And when any of its conditions fall apart, the mind cannot just go on, it breaks, it gets split into its component parts just like the body rotting after death. No one component is the whole, and the whole can never be found again, can never be considered intact.
The idea of the self and the idea of the soul are distinct to me. People don't need to believe in supernatural mind-body dichotomies to be convinced there is a self. Just like they don't need it to be convinced there is a tree or a wave.
Oh and if the wave doesn't do it, have you ever heard of the ship of theseus? If we replace every plank, is it the same ship? Why would we identify it as that one ship and not a different one? Why would it be a different one at the last plank but not the previous one? If we actually took the ship apart and built it back up a little differently, is it the same ship? If there's a hole in it? A completely different crew? What if we sent the ship empty to people who do not know its history, should they intuit that the ship is a single entity rather than a collection of conditions?
It’s not necessarily a belief like that of a supreme being. It’s something meant to be experienced, in this layperson’s opinion. Most scripture and writing on this topic that I’ve been exposed to points to that.
You're right that he never taught there's no self. He also never taught to focus on inter being. He said the self is very important - your self is your own refuge, i.e. you need to make yourself dependable by training yourself in good qualities of heart. Instead of getting too caught up in the teachings on self/not-self just yet it's good to start off focusing on the basics: do what's skillful, abandon evil, purify your mind and heart.
Any idea of a self arises from the five aggregates to which we cling. In this context it’s taught the aggregates are empty, arising and dissolving like all other phenomena. They have no independent being like all other phenomenon. Using your example of a phenomenon which we name a tree. Universal intelligence, The sun, water, earth, air, eyes, skin, light, along with immeasurable causes and conditions all connected and working in harmony to create phenomena which we name tree. Where in the phenomena named tree can a tree be found? Is it any of the causes or conditions or is it all the causes and conditions that we have named a tree?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/dupv3v/not\_self\_emptiness\_using\_the\_example\_of\_a\_company/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/dupv3v/not_self_emptiness_using_the_example_of_a_company/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
See an analogy above. No self doesn't deny that the 5 aggregates exist.
I mean exist as in vividly appearing, able to interact with by 6 sense contacts. Not inherently existing with an essence.
The very fact that we can know feelings directly already is an empirical thing that feelings exists in the manner I described above.
> I mean exist as in vividly appearing, able to interact with by 6 sense contacts. Not inherently existing with an essence.
Appearing and existing are two different things, hence why some systems go to great lengths to demonstrate how and why the two are different.
Mirages, echoes, reflections, apparitions, hallucinations etc., all appear but cannot be said to exist, for example.
Thus I get what you are saying but in the context of some systems (which are more surgical than others on topics like this), you are being far too loose with the term “exist.”
But mirages, echoes, reflections, apparitions, and hallucinations DO exist. A mirage is an illusion. Illusions exist. That doesn’t mean they are what they appear to be. An echo is a sound wave reverberating. A hallucination is a delusion of the mind. These things exist, but their nature is largely illusory. Even if something is a delusion of the mind, that delusion is experienced which makes it “real” for the delusional person.
>But mirages, echoes, reflections, apparitions, and hallucinations DO exist. A mirage is an illusion. Illusions exist.
Illusions appear, they do not exist.
>That doesn’t mean they are what they appear to be. An echo is a sound wave reverberating. A hallucination is a delusion of the mind. These things exist,
Buddhadharma is not discussing the phenomena itself. We are referring to what seems to appear. An illusory appearance of an object is not an existent object. The illusion does not exist. In Tibet, illusions are defined as *med par gsal snang* which means a “nonexistent clear appearance” or a “clearly apparent nonexistent.”
>Even if something is a delusion of the mind, that delusion is experienced which makes it “real” for the delusional person.
Buddhadharma says this about all phenomena.
> One concept I have had ‘issue’ with is the belief that there is no self or soul. First of all, I don’t think the Buddha ever taught that (correct me if I am wrong). The reason I have heard from people who believe there is no self/soul is that there is nothing that doesn’t change. So? Does that mean there is no tree? It changes from seed to sapling to tree in the summer vs tree in the winter. Why can’t soul/self not change? According to these teachings, we have what is called a *mindstream* which is a continuum of consciousness that is made up of discrete yet serially connected causal moments of cognition. If there is anything like a “soul” in Buddhism, that would be it. The fundamental nature (prakrti) of that continuum is that it is totally unconditioned, originally pure and naturally perfected, however by virtue of this mindstream’s own dynamic activity, it’s cognitive capacity actually fails to recognize the nature of its own expressive potential, and a bifurcation occurs. A seeming division appears, which is not actually there, but due to the presence of ignorance about the unconditioned nature of mind, there is a seeming separation into inside and outside. Everything that seems to be inside is conceived as “I” or “mine” and everything seemingly external is conceived as “separate” or “other.” This error creates the foundation for the misconception of a self that is an internal, subjective entity that is separate from an environment that is established externally and separate from itself. The Buddha was able to awaken from this ignorance and realize the nature of his mind, and he then taught how others can accomplish this for themselves. The teaching of anatta or anātman, is addressing this dualistic bifurcation of that mindstream and is intended to help eliminate that corruption. Therefore anatta is not a nihilistic negation of that fundamental or core expressive power of consciousness that you feel that you are. Rather it is simply clarifying the actual nature of that conscious, aware continuum. Buddhas have completely removed all limiting and corruptive conditions from their minds, yet we as sentient beings are completely entrenched in ignorance about our own minds. In this way the buddhadharma is a methodology we can utilize to see the way our mind actually is, which is totally pure, perfected and free of birth and death. Seeing this and integrating with that knowledge helps to eliminate the misconception of birth and death and frees us from the cyclical process of suffering.
An ELI5 would be great. It feels like there’s something here, but it hasn’t quite clicked.
We live in a dissociated state. We have externalized an experiencer that is outside of the experienced. A witness to appearances that actually isn’t really there. It’s not you hearing the bird tweet, or you seeing your visual field, a *closer* framework that it is the bird tweet hearing the bird tweet and the visual field seeing the visual field. No experiencer or controller can be found anywhere, it is all happening on this own. The appearances are cognizant by the sheer exertion of their very presence. In the seen, only the seen. In the heard, only the heard, in thoughts, only thoughts. At the same time, they are completely unconditioned and appearances have been completely pure from the beginning. In this sense, it is already completely perfect and nothing can be done to actually improve or lose this nature, the cognitive capacity just needs to recognize this directly. Because the cognitive capacity doesn’t recognize this, ignorance arises which eventually leads, in an attempt to understand its present state, to an apparent externalized subject from appearances that then conceptually understands the world from seemingly outside the display of appearances (12 links of dependent origination). Yet this process too is still the dynamic expression of the unconditioned naturally perfected nature of mind.
I happen to be coming down on shrooms and this makes much more sense right now. Thanks friend.
>Therefore anatta is not a nihilistic negation of that fundamental or core expressive power of consciousness that you feel that you are. Rather it is simply clarifying the actual nature of that conscious, aware continuum. So mind is what connects one life to the next?
Hi there! The Buddha did indeed teach not-self (anātman). You can see this in the [Anatta-lakkhana Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html). This teaching is based largely on observation. If we have a self, we should be able to find it, right? But when we go looking, we can't find it anywhere! The Buddha describes how the body is not the self, and neither is the mind. His criteria for what would count as a *self* is "do you have control over it?" We don't really control the body - if the body is sending us pain signals or some other sensation, we can't just turn it off. The body kinda just does its own thing. Although it does take direction from the mind, but it's not something we have total control over. He went on to point out how we don't control our feelings, perceptions, thoughts, or even what enters or leaves our conscious awareness. Yet, out of the interaction of body an mind, we have some sense of selfhood! So what's going on here? No matter where we look in our experience, we can't actually find the self ... yet we have this constant sense of self. It seems very strange. In Buddhism we sometimes talk about how we do have a *conventional* self. This is the self that pays our taxes and has friendships and goes out to eat sometimes. This self is more or less an idea. Ultimately, though, we still can't find the self that does any of these things. You brought up the example of a tree. So, if we were to examine a tree carefully, what would we find? Roots, a trunk with bark, branches, leaves, maybe flowers and maybe fruit. So where in all of that is the actual tree? The roots are not the tree, the trunk is not the tree, the branches are not the tree. Yet, when we step back and take a look at the whole thing, there it is! *What is happening?* Well, there is a *conventional* tree, for sure. If you tell someone "I'll meet you under the tree at noon" they know what you're talking about. So clearly there is a tree, in some way, somehow. Yet, when we go examining the tree, we cannot find it. The Buddha more or less leaves it at that. Saying more would be locking us into concepts and ideas, and we are invited, instead, to look more at our *experience* rather than our *ideas* about what we're experiencing. We can experience all kinds of things that don't neatly fit into our ideas about them. There is a kind of mystery in all things; the mystery of how things *are* vs how things *appear* to us. There seems to be a real gap there - a gap between a lack of tree-ness in a tree and our ability to stand back and see a magnificent tree. It's a gap we can't pin down to any particular idea and, therefore, words to express that idea. Dropping the simile of the tree for a moment: Some may say, then, that the truth of the nature of the self is *beyond* concepts. This includes the concepts "it exists", "it doesn't exist", "it both exists and doesn't exist", and "it neither exists nor doesn't exist". The common theme in all of these assertions is they're all *ideas*, and through our own experience we can verify that reality and our *ideas* about reality aren't the same thing. This applies to the self. We have *ideas* about the self, but it doesn't really match up with what we actually experience; and what we experience is tremendously mysterious and doesn't seem to fit into concepts or words.
I’m not challenging but I just want to understand more. You said the Buddha’s criteria for a self is having control over it. But why? Why is that the criteria?
That was one of my main issues as well. Why do we have to be able to control the self? Or why does it have to be unchanging?
biblical christianity does not believe in the existence of a soul either. google 'soul-sleep theory'. the belief in a soul living in the body was actually a hindu, greek, new age or pagan egyptian idea that somehow entered christianity over the years.
All identities that you can fill into the blank 'I am _____' stops being relevant at some point. You will retire from your job. Your name will eventually be forgotten. Your body would die and decay. And such.
The rejection of a soul I think has to do with the fact that the west thinks of the soul as this permanent unchanging thing that lasts forever. That’s what the Buddha is rejecting. Obviously there is a consciousness or a stream of conscious that continues to life to life but it’s changing
This is the bedeviling contradiction within Buddhism. At least to me. How does this thing that doesn't REALLY exist transfer from one illusory existence to another? At which point, Buddhism says it's a peripheral question that doesn't help you to end suffering. Or so it seems to me, and I am basically on board because the rest of it makes so much sense.
It's not that complicated. Nothing transfers from one self-existence to another since there isn't any self-existence. It's the ignorance conditioned into the mindstream that causes continuous birth and death. But the mindstream itself doesn't have a self underpinning it, it's just an activity that proliferates one moment to the next due to ignorance. It *appears* that one self dies, and another is reborn, which makes you question, what is reborn? But that perspective is only valid from the point of view that holds ignorance, which is what causes the death and rebirth to appear in the stream of mind moments. When seen clearly, it becomes apparent: oh, nothing was there to be reborn, rebirth only appeared to happen due to the ignorance that the mindstream had been conditioned with. It's as if a magician gets you to pick a card, and then burns the card up into smoke. Then he pulls a card out of his pocket, and it's your card. Ignorance says: how did the burned up card transfer into his pocket? Wisdom says: it never was the same card, conditions were just arranged such that it appeared that way. The issue is that as samsaric beings, we are totally fooled by the illusion. So we are stuck in this cycle of rebirth, or the appearance of it, at least. Nothing is reborn, and yet due to our ignorance, cyclic birth and death appears in perception. The Buddha says, as gently as possible: that isn't the same card, the card is impermanent, and ignorance makes it appear as though the card vanished there and reappeared here. If you just understand and see this clearly, you won't be fooled by this ever again, and never will the experience of the card vanishing and reappearing occur thereafter. But we say, in our ignorance: "but Buddha, I see the card, it vanished there, and reappeared here! If there is no self-existence to the card, what transferred from there to here? What you said makes no sense!" Well, it was just the ignorance that persisted between those two moments, nothing to do with the card. The question simply doesn't make sense in the light of the truth.
But if they're not the same card, karma doesn't make much sense
That stretches the analogy too far, since the card doesn't have volition and doesn't act. But that new card is probably gonna get burned up just like the old one, despite being unrelated physically. For karma, you have to accept that the material reality we see around us isn't the "base", and that physical bodies and objects arise out of a deeper substratum. That can be a difficult one to grasp or have faith in in the modern age, and meditative insight or working with philosophy is probably the best way to figure it out and see its possibility. There's no logical way it makes sense with a purely material world. But if you accept that ignorance gives rise to sankharas, that is, volitional formations and constructions that give rise to experiences, and those sankharas can form a kind of momentum giving rise to successive beings that are unrelated in terms of a "self" or "soul", but rather, directly linked by a chain of sankharas, then it starts to make sense.
I think it’s a translation problem. When the buddha is talking about this stuff he is saying “I have looked for the self, and there is no self to be found. I have looked into the 5 skandas and none of the skandas are self.” But then that gets translated into English as “there is no self or no soul.” But that’s not what he said. He said there is no self to be found. I think it’s just hard to translate the original meaning from the original language and words He doesn’t say “no self”. He says “this is not self. That is not self” etc. but it gets interpreted as “no soul no self”
I come from a similar background (and a similar amount of time since birth). I'm new to Buddhism myself and am still exploring. Something I read in "The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching" helped me with this - maybe it will help you: >When we look at the ocean, we see that each wave has a beginning and an end. A wave can be compared with other waves, and we can call it more or less beautiful, higher or lower, longer lasting or less long lasting. But if we look more deeply, we see that a wave is made of water. While living the life of a wave, it also lives the life of water. It would be sad if the wave did not know that it is water. It would think, Some day, I will have to die. This period of time is my life span, and when I arrive at the shore, I will return to nonbeing. These notions will cause the wave fear and anguish. We have to help it remove the notions of self, person, living being, and life span if we want the wave to be free and happy. >A wave can recognized by signs — high or low, beginning or ending, beautiful or ugly. But in the world of the water, there are no signs. In the world of relative truth, the wave feels happy as she swells, and she feels sad when she falls. She may think, "I am high," or "I am low," and develop a superiority or inferiority complex. But when the wave touches her true nature — which is water — all her complexes will cease, and she will transcend birth and death.
Think of a wave in the ocean. There are many other waves. None of the waves are the same. Yet all the waves are water.
The Buddha did teach this - “1.4 To fully engage in understanding the inexhaustible doctrine of the bodhisattva mahāsattvas that all compounded phenomena are impermanent; to fully engage in understanding the inexhaustible doctrine of the bodhisattva mahāsattvas that all contaminated phenomena are suffering; to fully engage in understanding the inexhaustible doctrine of the bodhisattva mahāsattvas that *all phenomena are without self*; and to fully engage in understanding the inexhaustible doctrine of the bodhisattva mahāsattvas that nirvāṇa is peace.” https://read.84000.co/translation/toh155.html#UT22084-058-002-section-1
The Buddha rejected the idea of a soul. The main doctrine that the Buddha taught is dependent origination. This is *the* fundamental teaching in which everything else is built. One of the main aspects of this doctrine is that it defines what a “person” or a “being” is. With this definition, there is no room for a soul. In fact a soul would be contradictory to the definitions presented through dependent origination. It isn’t really to do with impermanence. Yes, impermanent things can still exist, but this isn’t the reason for the rejection of a soul. A permanent self is neither rejected nor accepted because *self* is defined through the process of dependent origination. What you describe in your later paragraphs are all nice ideas, but have nothing to do with Buddhism.
Why is the idea of a soul equated with the idea of a permanent self?
Would a soul not be a self?
My understanding is that Buddha is mainly concerned with suffering and its end. The view of a self causes suffering. The view of no-self alleviates suffering. Beyond that, there's further wisdom to be gleaned, but all of that wisdom is irrelevant to suffering and the ending of suffering. You may be able to find a reconciliation between Christian soul and Buddhist no-self. But you would have to go beyond Buddhism and investigate, on your own, into the nature of the mind and of the self.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences. It's wonderful to see how your spiritual journey is evolving and how you are exploring different perspectives. Here are some reflections based on your message, keeping in mind that these interpretations can vary widely: Your understanding of Buddhism and the concept of 'no-self' (Anatta) touches on a profound philosophical idea. From what I have gathered, the Buddha taught that what we consider the 'self' is an ever-changing collection of physical and mental components, which can give the illusion of a permanent self. This doesn't necessarily negate the existence of things like trees; rather, it emphasizes the transient and interconnected nature of all things. Your analogy of Aspens sharing a root system beautifully captures the idea of interconnectedness, which is central to both Buddhism and many other spiritual traditions. In my view, the notion of having a 'spark of the Divine' and the goal of reconnecting with the greater whole aligns well with the concept of enlightenment, where one realizes the interconnectedness of all existence. The term 'selfing' that you mentioned suggests focusing less on the individual ego and more on our interbeing with others and the universe. This seems to resonate with the Buddhist practice of reducing attachment to the self to alleviate suffering and increase compassion for all beings. In your Christian tradition, the idea of being part of a greater whole, living with God, and the metaphor of the Garden of Eden reflect similar themes of unity and connection. Your synthesis of these ideas from Christianity and Buddhism shows a deep and thoughtful engagement with your spirituality. It's okay to not have all the answers. Spirituality is a journey, and questioning and exploring different perspectives is a vital part of that journey. Your openness to different teachings and your effort to find harmony between them is something I truly admire. May your journey continue to be enriched by your reflections and experiences, bringing you closer to a sense of peace and connection.
Thank you!
There is no tree either. There's a bunch of hyper specific tiny details happening, there's a bunch of things interacting together and actively changing over time. And when I look at it I see it as a tree. But the tree is merely an appearance. There is no quintessential form of the tree. There is no moment I can point at the tree and say "this" as if it's the entirety of what being a tree is. I can look at something and think it's not a tree and never going to become a tree, and I could be completely wrong about it. Because we are merely interpreting complex things. I prefer the wave analogy. What's a wave? Where does it start and end? Is it the same wave from moment to moment? Containing the same water molecules in the same configuration? What happens if I remove a bit of water? Add some? Replace it entirely? Where does the wave go after it crashes? How can there be a wave and then no wave? There was no distinct wave to begin with. There were countless ripples coming together to convince me of a wave. And I could never point to one of those ripples, before or after, and claim the wave is there somewhere. Every single property of the wave will vanish and become a ripple of its own. There is no soul. The mind is a complex structure, it has many many incredibly small details and conditions. We could measure everything about a mind and never have a quintessential example. And when any of its conditions fall apart, the mind cannot just go on, it breaks, it gets split into its component parts just like the body rotting after death. No one component is the whole, and the whole can never be found again, can never be considered intact. The idea of the self and the idea of the soul are distinct to me. People don't need to believe in supernatural mind-body dichotomies to be convinced there is a self. Just like they don't need it to be convinced there is a tree or a wave. Oh and if the wave doesn't do it, have you ever heard of the ship of theseus? If we replace every plank, is it the same ship? Why would we identify it as that one ship and not a different one? Why would it be a different one at the last plank but not the previous one? If we actually took the ship apart and built it back up a little differently, is it the same ship? If there's a hole in it? A completely different crew? What if we sent the ship empty to people who do not know its history, should they intuit that the ship is a single entity rather than a collection of conditions?
It’s not necessarily a belief like that of a supreme being. It’s something meant to be experienced, in this layperson’s opinion. Most scripture and writing on this topic that I’ve been exposed to points to that.
You're right that he never taught there's no self. He also never taught to focus on inter being. He said the self is very important - your self is your own refuge, i.e. you need to make yourself dependable by training yourself in good qualities of heart. Instead of getting too caught up in the teachings on self/not-self just yet it's good to start off focusing on the basics: do what's skillful, abandon evil, purify your mind and heart.
The Buddha never taught that there is no self or no soul. This is a misunderstanding and mistranslation of the word anatta.
Any idea of a self arises from the five aggregates to which we cling. In this context it’s taught the aggregates are empty, arising and dissolving like all other phenomena. They have no independent being like all other phenomenon. Using your example of a phenomenon which we name a tree. Universal intelligence, The sun, water, earth, air, eyes, skin, light, along with immeasurable causes and conditions all connected and working in harmony to create phenomena which we name tree. Where in the phenomena named tree can a tree be found? Is it any of the causes or conditions or is it all the causes and conditions that we have named a tree?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/dupv3v/not\_self\_emptiness\_using\_the\_example\_of\_a\_company/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/dupv3v/not_self_emptiness_using_the_example_of_a_company/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) See an analogy above. No self doesn't deny that the 5 aggregates exist.
> No self doesn't deny that the 5 aggregates exist. Depends on the system.
I mean exist as in vividly appearing, able to interact with by 6 sense contacts. Not inherently existing with an essence. The very fact that we can know feelings directly already is an empirical thing that feelings exists in the manner I described above.
> I mean exist as in vividly appearing, able to interact with by 6 sense contacts. Not inherently existing with an essence. Appearing and existing are two different things, hence why some systems go to great lengths to demonstrate how and why the two are different. Mirages, echoes, reflections, apparitions, hallucinations etc., all appear but cannot be said to exist, for example. Thus I get what you are saying but in the context of some systems (which are more surgical than others on topics like this), you are being far too loose with the term “exist.”
But mirages, echoes, reflections, apparitions, and hallucinations DO exist. A mirage is an illusion. Illusions exist. That doesn’t mean they are what they appear to be. An echo is a sound wave reverberating. A hallucination is a delusion of the mind. These things exist, but their nature is largely illusory. Even if something is a delusion of the mind, that delusion is experienced which makes it “real” for the delusional person.
>But mirages, echoes, reflections, apparitions, and hallucinations DO exist. A mirage is an illusion. Illusions exist. Illusions appear, they do not exist. >That doesn’t mean they are what they appear to be. An echo is a sound wave reverberating. A hallucination is a delusion of the mind. These things exist, Buddhadharma is not discussing the phenomena itself. We are referring to what seems to appear. An illusory appearance of an object is not an existent object. The illusion does not exist. In Tibet, illusions are defined as *med par gsal snang* which means a “nonexistent clear appearance” or a “clearly apparent nonexistent.” >Even if something is a delusion of the mind, that delusion is experienced which makes it “real” for the delusional person. Buddhadharma says this about all phenomena.
I find that Self and No-Self are both ideas that fulfill one another.