[siklop]

Howdy guys,

As i am new to Buddhism thought i should get the most important question out of the way.

i have read here and elsewhere that Buddha did not believe in the soul-I was just wondering...well...why? i mean the soul, for me, has everything to do with experiences that you get with meditation for example or the will to stop the suffering of the world, which surely is what is being taught. so I thought, is the lack of soul to do with the idea that Buddhism is not a religion?
if this is true, does that mean that one is not really a true Buddhist if one does believe in the soul?

thanks,

[WaydayTew]

hi there, ES

we discussed this topic, recently, here: http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...-and-the-heart

in the Buddha's time, term 'atman' ('soul') referred to an intrinsic unchanging essence that is reincarnated from life to life

this can be different to the term 'soul', as used in Christianity, which also includes the meaning a human being's conscience

thus, in Buddhism, our conscience is part of the 'citta', which means 'mind-heart'

on the internet, we can find both of these meanings of 'soul':

soul/sōl/
Noun:

1. The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

2. A person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity. thus, if you are referring to 'soul' as your moral or emotional nature, in Buddhism, this is called the 'citta' (mind-heart)

kind regards

element

[zueqhbyhp]

I have recently think I found the answer to soul...

I feel I understand why Buddha never did acknowledge soul theory...

The soul theory definition is there is another or an entity resides in the body.

An understanding came to me is that the only thing that resides in the body is you... So why did you label yourself as a soul? Why did you label yourself as a another party?
Can't we say it is we who resides in the body? What do we call we who resides in our body? Does it matter?

To not label yourself of anything nor identified ourselves with a mind created image of supposedly us (attachment to the identity), is the path to Anatta which is No-self.

This is what I understand so far.... The atman theory varies however as Atman put soul and ego together... For those who follow Eckhart Tolle's teaching is that the soul and the ego is different. Ego is the creation of the mind while the soul is who we really are.

However the soul theory is really weird... For example, my soul is pure... Really? Do you own your soul? Why can't you say I am pure?

Then there is my body and my soul... Really? Then who is that fellow who is labeling my body and my soul? A third party?

So maybe that is why Buddha find this soul theory ridiculous as there is no soul, there is only I...

This is my opinion based on some weird but kinda insightful thought that out of nowhere arises.

Peace be with you.

[Freeptube]

Instead of starting a separate thread I'm just popping this post here as a little general reminder to everyone that this beginners forum is a place for newcomers to ask questions about the Buddha's teachings and for our long-term practitioners to give them some suggestions and maybe some links to suttas for further study.

The threads in this particular forum aren't meant to be used by our members for general debating .

New topics are always welcome in all the forums on the website

Thanks

[truttyMab]

Hello,
what gotamo Buddho meant es not called sou.But he didn´t say that there is no such ting. The concept of the soul depends on the buddhist direction you are in or going into.
I don´t like to tell the other buddhist directions of, but my position is the one of a Pali-Canon reader and praticing. I´m in no buddhist
organisation. I studied all by myselfand also practiced. I reached the highest point that can ever be reched by mankind. An d I found out that the Eightfold Path is working very well.
In Pali-Canon ther is Brahma and he is in the beyond. There are eben devilisch worlds for extreme bad behavior.
Wahat´s left after the physical death might be called soul or atman,or how could there be eincarnation. Beneath Brahme there are the 33 gods and below of them are the four gods of the world.There is even a messenger called S
don´t belief me, read the Pali-Canon and especially the Dighanikayo. If you can read german look for the edition from Neumann, Karl-Eugen,
Szolnay Verlag Wien. I´m posessing the edition of 1957. Some might tell you, that i was not translated good enoug, but think from which point of view they critize it.

good luck

anando

[Pinkman]

I reached the highest point that can ever be reached by mankind.

thank you Anando

in the Pali suttas, there is the following stock phrase:

...my position is the one of a Pali-Canon reader and especially the Dighanikayo.

today, there are many readers of the Pali-Canon. this does not necessarily mean they understand what they are reading. for example, there are many teachings in the Dighanikayo that contradict the large body of other suttas, such as the Maha Nidana Sutta

i have never read the Buddha explain what's left after the physical death. i have never read the Buddha explain there is a soul or atman. i have only read the Buddha explain there are five aggregates. your view here appears certainly very unique to yourself


kind regards

element