Soul

[Sriram]

Well, Hume and the Buddha didn't think so.

Buddha didn't actually say that there is no Self.....unlike what many people seem to think.

[jeremyp]

Buddha didn't actually say that there is no Self.....unlike what many people seem to think.

True: he said "there is no spoon" - or am I confusing that with something else?

[Sriram]

True: he said "there is no spoon" - or am I confusing that with something else?

??

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your first sentence ignores the issue with what something experiencing itself means. It also appears to add into some claim that the logical issues with the idea are somehow dealt with by assertion of necessity.

Your second sentence then contradicts your first, though this is in part because you have no coherent position on this. It also appears to create a strawman since I wasn't saying a duality equals an infinite regress. And in doing so, ignores that the inifinite regress was caused by one of your contradictory positions you have taken in this discussion, i.e. the dualist one of a separate self somehow experiencing a different separate self.
This would necessitate the regression by your logic as that self would need another self etc etc and so on ad infinitum.


And all of that is ignoring your overall lack of definition and the basic problems with any of your contradictory positions have with science and others experiences

It seems to me that it s you who have introduced the duality.
In your scheme the observer is separate and other from the observed.
You think this then involves a third observer then a fourth ad infinitude
No one in this chain would be any the wiser vis a vis anything resembling self awareness.

The trouble is that your scheme is arbitrary and would not produce the experience.
Alternatives are the observed and observer are one or they are so intimate that they perfectly inform the other.....a binity

[Nearly Sane]

It seems to me that it s you who have introduced the duality.
In your scheme the observer is separate and other from the observed.
You think this then involves a third observer then a fourth ad infinitude
No one in this chain would be any the wiser vis a vis anything resembling self awareness.

The trouble is that your scheme is arbitrary and does not produce the experience.
Alternatives are the observed and observer are one or they are so intimate that they can perfectly inform the other.....a binity

No, you introduced it, I was simply pointing out some of the issues with that. That you then posited a different idea doesn't invalidate the criticism of the contradictory idea you started with.


So let's move on to your altwrnatives, which in the case of the experience being some how mystically the same thing as the observation, has already been questioned. So how does the experience of something become the same thing as the thing itself?


As to your 'binity', that's just the original duality.


As noted in my previous post, you don't define your terms clearly which  means your posts become semi coherent ramblings and any ideas are buried in  mush.

[jeremyp]

??

Google is your friend

[wigginhall]

It seems to me that it s you who have introduced the duality.
In your scheme the observer is separate and other from the observed.
You think this then involves a third observer then a fourth ad infinitude
No one in this chain would be any the wiser vis a vis anything resembling self awareness.

The trouble is that your scheme is arbitrary and would not produce the experience.
Alternatives are the observed and observer are one or they are so intimate that they perfectly inform the other.....a binity

The idea of observer/observed being one is common in Eastern religions, (although the radicals  say that neither exist), but surely it's a non-starter in Christianity, since salvation relies on a separate soul, which has become sullied.  In fact, some Christian mystics got close to oneness, but it seems incoherent.  If I am one with everything (hot dog style), why do I need anything?  It's an old joke in Zen, that it's seeking that damns me.

[Dicky Underpants]

Buddha didn't actually say that there is no Self.....unlike what many people seem to think.

This will come as a great surprise to many, since the doctrine of anatta (no-self) derives from the Sanskrit an-atman: i.e. there is no atman, self or soul, which Hinduism insists upon.
Of course, neither you nor I were witnesses to what the Buddha actually said, and the classic texts were written down hundreds of years after the historical Buddha was alive. However, the following classic text seems fairly unequivocal:

. In the Visuddhimagga it is therefore said:

Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found.
 The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there.
 Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it.
 The path is, but no traveller on it is seen.

The Buddha was apparently wont to express things by negatives (It isn't this and it isn't that). The following from the Pali Anatta Sutra is typical:
 

Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'

However, once one has subtracted every kind of consciousness whatever
, one wonders what might be left to constitute any sort of self in a meaningful sense.

[Sriram]

This will come as a great surprise to many, since the doctrine of anatta (no-self) derives from the Sanskrit an-atman: i.e. there is no atman, self or soul, which Hinduism insists upon.
Of course, neither you nor I were witnesses to what the Buddha actually said, and the classic texts were written down hundreds of years after the historical Buddha was alive. However, the following classic text seems fairly unequivocal:

. In the Visuddhimagga it is therefore said:


The Buddha was apparently wont to express things by negatives (It isn't this and it isn't that). The following from the Pali Anatta Sutra is typical:
 
However, once has subtracted every kind of consciousness whatever
, one wonders what might be left to constitute any sort of self in a meaningful sense.

Hi Dicky,

Yes...many people are surprised to learn that Buddha never actually taught the idea of Anatma (sanskrit) or Annata (Pali). He didn't write a single word and no one knows what he actually taught.

1. 'Buddha's teachings' were written down more than 400 years after his death. Emperor Ashoka's children Mahindra and Sangamitra are believed to have migrated to Sri Lanka where the Pali Canon (Tripitaka) was first written around 200 BCE. Some scholars believe that much of the Pali Canon is a later creation by several generations of followers, while only the Dhammapada probably represents the original teachings of the Buddha.

2. The concept of Anatma (no atma) is only taught in the Theravada school. Funnily, they also teach Karma and Rebirth with progression towards Nirvana.  This obviously conflicts with the idea of anatma (who or what undergoes rebirth and karmic progression!?).

3. The other schools of Buddhism  such as Mahayana and Vajrayana (Tibetan) do not teach the idea of anatma. The Mahayana teachings are similar to the Vedantic teachings (Dharmakaya...Brahman). The Tibetan teachings are derived from Hindu Tantra and the local Bon religion.

4. The idea of Sunyata (nothingness) is quite popular in Buddhism. But this is seen as just the experience of the state of no-mind in Hinduism.   As a person practices mind control, at one stage the mind just stops. This gives rise to the experience of nothingness. Just like if the computer software suddenly fails, the screen will become blank.  While some Buddhists think of this as representing no-atma, in Hinduism we believe that the experience of nothingness is itself evidence of an experiencer...namely the atma. It is a stage in knowing the true experiencer (Self) behind all experience.

5. The concept of 'not this'...'not this' (Neti Neti) is an Upanishadic  (Brihadaranakya) way of eliminating everything that is an experience till we reach the experiencer (self).

Cheers.

Sriram

[Dicky Underpants]

Hi Dicky,

Yes...many people are surprised to learn that Buddha never actually taught the idea of Anatma (sanskrit) or Annata (Pali). He didn't write a single word and no one knows what he actually taught.

Hi Sriram

At least we can agree that we cannot know what the Buddha actually taught, because of the long interval between his life and the recording of his purported sayings. It's a fine point, but the fact is, he may have taught it, and he may not have.

As regards the authenticity of the Theravada versus the Mahayana schools, we could argue till the cows come home (I parted company with Buddhist thought decades ago, except for a few practical ideas). As for what is supposed to be reborn on the path to Nirvana, according to the Theravada school, I always thought that this was considered to be the Skandhas (aggregates of personality), which have no permanent form, and thought only to perpetrate the sense of a self, if we persist in being attached to them. I thought this idea was taken over in  Mahayana thought.

The main difference between the two branches of Buddhism, as far as I'm concerned, is that Theravada is dualistic and world-rejecting, whereas Mahayana is monistic and life-affirming (Nirvana - the formless - is Samsara - the world of change)*
I suppose this would accord with certain Hindu ideas of theological monism, which seem a kind of pantheism.
Then there is the teaching in the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism that Atman (the human soul) is Brahman (the divine soul). There doesn't seem to be much room for a real individual human soul in such a view. And indeed, I once heard an Indian Hindu pundit over here say "Brahman is the only reincarnator".

As for our own individual selves, I now take a purely materialist, evolutionary view: there is ultimately no such thing as a real self, but we have evolved with various appetites and ultimately self-consciousness which create the illusion of self. It does help everyday living if we treat this illusion as a practical reality, I find

*The Bodhissatva ideal is also important and attractive: the enlightened individual who gives up his ultimate salvation in order to help suffering humanity.

[Sriram]

Hi Sriram

At least we can agree that we cannot know what the Buddha actually taught, because of the long interval between his life and the recording of his purported sayings. It's a fine point, but the fact is, he may have taught it, and he may not have.

As regards the authenticity of the Theravada versus the Mahayana schools, we could argue till the cows come home (I parted company with Buddhist thought decades ago, except for a few practical ideas). As for what is supposed to be reborn on the path to Nirvana, according to the Theravada school, I always thought that this was considered to be the Skandhas (aggregates of personality), which have no permanent form, and thought only to perpetrate the sense of a self, if we persist in being attached to them. I thought this idea was taken over in  Mahayana thought.

The main difference between the two branches of Buddhism, as far as I'm concerned, is that Theravada is dualistic and world-rejecting, whereas Mahayana is monistic and life-affirming (Nirvana - the formless - is Samsara - the world of change)*
I suppose this would accord with certain Hindu ideas of theological monism, which seem a kind of pantheism.
Then there is the teaching in the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism that Atman (the human soul) is Brahman (the divine soul). There doesn't seem to be much room for a real individual human soul in such a view. And indeed, I once heard an Indian Hindu pundit over here say "Brahman is the only reincarnator".

As for our own individual selves, I now take a purely materialist, evolutionary view: there is ultimately no such thing as a real self, but we have evolved with various appetites and ultimately self-consciousness which create the illusion of self. It does help everyday living if we treat this illusion as a practical reality, I find

*The Bodhissatva ideal is also important and attractive: the enlightened individual who gives up his ultimate salvation in order to help suffering humanity.

Yeah...I am fine with that.

On the issue of what the self really is, I have written above about the String.  Speaking only at the material level, are you really the body/mind or DNA or atoms or the String?   

Life gets projected at many levels, like extrusions, such that we are different at each level but still retain the same essence.  This is where the differences and the essential oneness come in.

Cheers.

Sriram

[torridon]

Yeah...I am fine with that.

On the issue of what the self really is, I have written above about the String.  Speaking only at the material level, are you really the body/mind or DNA or atoms or the String?   

Life gets projected at many levels, like extrusions, such that we are different at each level but still retain the same essence.  This is where the differences and the essential oneness come in.

Cheers.

Sriram

I think David Hume's analogy of a twisted rope is insightful.

At a glance, we are a single thing, like a rope.  But if you examine in closer detail we find the rope is actually made up of a great many intertwined threads and there is no 'master' thread, no 'central' thread.

I think we are somewhat like that.  The apparent oneness of the self emerges out of the intimate intertwining of a great many dispositions and characteristics.  If you unwind that rope, we  find there is nothing there in the middle.

[Sriram]

I think David Hume's analogy of a twisted rope is insightful.

At a glance, we are a single thing, like a rope.  But if you examine in closer detail we find the rope is actually made up of a great many intertwined threads and there is no 'master' thread, no 'central' thread.

I think we are somewhat like that.  The apparent oneness of the self emerges out of the intimate intertwining of a great many dispositions and characteristics.  If you unwind that rope, we  find there is nothing there in the middle.

That is where we disagree. This is again the Zoom-In, Zoom-out problem. Its a matter of perception.

I believe that at the bottom of all apparent differences there is a oneness. All diverse phenomena are essentially part of one single phenomena.   All attempts at a Unified Theory in science are meant to identify this simple oneness.

As I have said above, if the String theory is correct, (leaving spiritual aspects out for the moment), the String is the single entity that is responsible for all phenomena. Like hand puppets, the same entity plays divergent roles.

[torridon]

That is where we disagree. This is again the Zoom-In, Zoom-out problem. Its a matter of perception.

I believe that at the bottom of all apparent differences there is a oneness. All diverse phenomena are essentially part of one single phenomena.   All attempts at a Unified Theory in science are meant to identify this simple oneness.

As I have said above, if the String theory is correct, (leaving spiritual aspects out for the moment), the String is the single entity that is responsible for all phenomena. Like hand puppets, the same entity plays divergent roles.

I don't think that constitutes a disagreement with Hume's analogy. The twisted rope is describing a phenomenon of selfhood at a much higher level of complexity. We're all accustomed to the notion that all the complex things at our level of perception are actually made from simpler homogenous underlying material.  The preSocratic Greeks had the notion that all things were made from atoms thousands of years before Einstein demonstrated modern atomic theory to be correct. But on the hand we can't claim that 'self' is synonymous with 'String'. I might be made of atoms, in some sense, but that doesn't mean I am an atom.

[Sriram]

I don't think that constitutes a disagreement with Hume's analogy. The twisted rope is describing a phenomenon of selfhood at a much higher level of complexity. We're all accustomed to the notion that all the complex things at our level of perception are actually made from simpler homogenous underlying material.  The preSocratic Greeks had the notion that all things were made from atoms thousands of years before Einstein demonstrated modern atomic theory to be correct. But on the hand we can't claim that 'self' is synonymous with 'String'. I might be made of atoms, in some sense, but that doesn't mean I am an atom.

You may not claim to be a an atom....but you essentially are only that!  You are driven by your DNA  which governs all your genetic traits and instinctive impulses. DNA is atoms and atoms are EP's and finally Strings.

As you so often claim, its all predetermined. Your notion of yourself is just an illusion.  Essentially it is all just the String doing whatever it does. That is the ultimate reality (as we understand it today, materially speaking). 

[SteveH]

Hi Sriram

At least we can agree that we cannot know what the Buddha actually taught, because of the long interval between his life and the recording of his purported sayings. It's a fine point, but the fact is, he may have taught it, and he may not have.

What is attributed to the Buddha was certainly taught by somebody or some group, so all that matters is whether it's true or helpful, not who originally taught it, surely.

[Sriram]

What is attributed to the Buddha was certainly taught by somebody or some group, so all that matters is whether it's true or helpful, not who originally taught it, surely.

I agree, but the problem with many different people from different regions, time periods and backgrounds contributing under one name is that....Buddha will almost appear like a person with a serious Multiple Personality Disorder.

Buddhism is probably the only religion with one single individual as its fountainhead, with as many contradictions and internal conflicts.  I agree that even Christianity and Islam have their denominations and sects. But their central philosophical base does not differ.

Buddhism on the other hand has at one end a nihilistic philosophy of nothingness...no Self or Atma. Then it has the philosophy of Dharmakaya (similar to the Hindu Brahman) as the ultimate universal Spirit.   Then it has a very Yogic philosophy of self development and freedom from rebirth and suffering. Then it also has the tradition of the Buddha as a deity and godhead who is worshiped in temples.

Everyone has been shooting over the Buddha's shoulder and everyone has his own version of 'Buddhism'.

[Enki]

I think David Hume's analogy of a twisted rope is insightful.

At a glance, we are a single thing, like a rope.  But if you examine in closer detail we find the rope is actually made up of a great many intertwined threads and there is no 'master' thread, no 'central' thread.

I think we are somewhat like that.  The apparent oneness of the self emerges out of the intimate intertwining of a great many dispositions and characteristics.  If you unwind that rope, we  find there is nothing there in the middle.

I see the idea of anatta as quite an interesting concept. It seems to suggest that what we call 'self' is not an immutable, eternal single entity but a combination of things(the skandhas) such that together they make the functioning illusion of 'self'. As vajira, the Buddhist nun, wrote in her analogy with the chariot, which suggested that just as the chariot is no more than the sum of its parts, there is no self other than the sum of the self parts. 

It seems to sit well with  Hume's idea of self, when he said it is 'nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other  with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement'.

This attitude towards self seems to be reinforced by neuroscience in that there seems to be no single focus of consciousness within the brain, but rather it is the result of many seemingly disparate elements working together, or, as Al Khalili/ McFadden put it, 'synchronization of nerve firing by the brain's EM field is also very significant in the context of the puzzle of consciousness'.

[Nearly Sane]

One thing to highlight about the Hume quote is that it describes what I experience. The unity of self that Alan argues is everyone's experience is not what happens to us.

[Dicky Underpants]

What is attributed to the Buddha was certainly taught by somebody or some group, so all that matters is whether it's true or helpful, not who originally taught it, surely.

Absolutely. It was only a small point, which arose because I originally written to the effect "The Buddha said..." and Sriram then wrote "The Buddha didn't say...". Then we both concurred that nobody could know for certain what the historical Buddha said or didn't say.
From what I understand of it, I'd say that your comment is especially relevant to Mahayana teaching, where the emphasis is distinctly away from personalities and towards what is helpful to you - though there are tried and tested methods which are supposed to help you on your way to satori. There is of course the notorious dictum "If you meet the Buddha, kill him" - which epitomises this anti-personality (and of course, anti cult figure worship) way of thinking.  Odd though, that the Pure Land School is pretty much the antithesis of this, and is very much in line with Christian 'salvationism' (Sriram has alluded to this).

I don't agree with Sriram about the supposed greater diversity of Buddhism as opposed to the homogeneity of Christianity though. Buddhism certainly appears to be hugely diverse, but as a non-believing westerner, I'd say that Christianity is even more so. Ironically, much of this is down to sola scriptura , where the Biblical text is considered definitive - giving rise to the absurd claims that "Jesus said....." The doctrine of the Trinity would seem to be fundamental to many mainstream branches, but the Arian belief is still going strong among a number of influential sects. Then there are the multitude of apocalyptic sects, who are not too concerned about building a better society. And then there are the small but beautiful number of critically minded believers who are aware of the scholarship of the last two hundred years, but still manage to maintain some sort of belief* etc etc.

*No names, no pack-drill" (where on earth did that expression come from?)


Back to Soul....

[Sriram]

Absolutely. It was only a small point, which arose because I originally written to the effect "The Buddha said..." and Sriram then wrote "The Buddha didn't say...". Then we both concurred that nobody could know for certain what the historical Buddha said or didn't say.
From what I understand of it, I'd say that your comment is especially relevant to Mahayana teaching, where the emphasis is distinctly away from personalities and towards what is helpful to you - though there are tried and tested methods which are supposed to help you on your way to satori. There is of course the notorious dictum "If you meet the Buddha, kill him" - which epitomises this anti-personality (and of course, anti cult figure worship) way of thinking.  Odd though, that the Pure Land School is pretty much the antithesis of this, and is very much in line with Christian 'salvationism' (Sriram has alluded to this).

I don't agree with Sriram about the supposed greater diversity of Buddhism as opposed to the homogeneity of Christianity though. Buddhism certainly appears to be hugely diverse, but as a non-believing westerner, I'd say that Christianity is even more so. Ironically, much of this is down to sola scriptura , where the Biblical text is considered definitive - giving rise to the absurd claims that "Jesus said....." The doctrine of the Trinity would seem to be fundamental to many mainstream branches, but the Arian belief is still going strong among a number of influential sects. Then there are the multitude of apocalyptic sects, who are not too concerned about building a better society. And then there are the small but beautiful number of critically minded believers who are aware of the scholarship of the last two hundred years, but still manage to maintain some sort of belief* etc etc.

*No names, no pack-drill" (where on earth did that expression come from?)


Back to Soul....

Buddhism is not just diverse, it is self contradictory.....which was my point.

[Sriram]

I think David Hume's analogy of a twisted rope is insightful.

At a glance, we are a single thing, like a rope.  But if you examine in closer detail we find the rope is actually made up of a great many intertwined threads and there is no 'master' thread, no 'central' thread.

I think we are somewhat like that.  The apparent oneness of the self emerges out of the intimate intertwining of a great many dispositions and characteristics.  If you unwind that rope, we  find there is nothing there in the middle.

Just to add to my above reply.....

The objective way of trying to identify the Self is neither here nor there.  The conditioned world will disappear because that is its very nature. Ultimately nothing is anything. Its all just vibrations of the String. Like notes played on a guitar.

But subjectively, its a different matter. Try as you may, you cannot get rid of the observer or experiencer.  Even with nothing at all in the external world, you still have an observer who experiences the nothingness.

[torridon]

Just to add to my above reply.....

The objective way of trying to identify the Self is neither here nor there.  The conditioned world will disappear because that is its very nature. Ultimately nothing is anything. Its all just vibrations of the String. Like notes played on a guitar.

But subjectively, its a different matter. Try as you may, you cannot get rid of the observer or experiencer.  Even with nothing at all in the external world, you still have an observer who experiences the nothingness.

Not sure how that makes any sense.  In a null world there would be no subjectivity.  Just as 'left' is defined by being not 'right', the idea of a subjective experiencer with nothing to experience makes no sense.  Subjectivity implies a context within which it has meaning.

[Robbie]

Siddhartha said, "There is no spoon". I read that years ago. I of course can prove him wrong!  There are many spoons.
(He probably meant something quite different )

[Sriram]

Siddhartha said, "There is no spoon". I read that years ago. I of course can prove him wrong!  There are many spoons.
(He probably meant something quite different )

Hi Robbie,

If all the things attributed to the Buddha were actually said by him, the Buddha would have had to live for a 1000 years!   

People are over mystifying and over complicating  his teachings. Buddha was just a Sramana like so many others at that time.  They were ascetics who believed in self development through rigorous self discipline. This is how he came up with the idea of the middle path.

We must remember that Buddha was not a Buddhist, just as Jesus was not a Christian. They both were products of the culture and religion that they were born into.....and they would have had no idea that separate  religions would be created in their name.  They would have probably been horrified at the idea.