Against No-Soul-ism Buddhism

When I first started studying Buddhism, I was amazed at how a religion could seem so logical, compared to my upbringing as a Catholic and Christian. However, it took me a while to realize that the majority of Buddhism on the internet is nihilistic, "no-soul Buddhism" and although I rejected this outright since I had a philosophical understanding of metaphysics, it took me a while to realize the depth of emptiness that these so called enlightening Buddhist religions had.

Emptiness was an important concept for me when first understanding Buddhism. It meant that the physical world is an illusion, a veil. It is pointless to desire things of the world. I saw the shallowness of people going after material possessions and political power. It was nonsense. It was contrary to, and inferior to, the light of wisdom within. This meditative bliss which I experience in meditation is beyond doubt in my mind. I know it exists because I have experienced it. As a result, I was able to learn Buddhism even with all of its nihilistic "no-soul-ism." But now that I am more able to express myself, I would like to say something about mainstream Buddhism, which is technically called Theravada, and say some things about what I think is close enough to original Buddhism, which is none other than the Self-ism of the Upanishads.

Theravada Buddhism has some good points to make, especially when it comes to the Four Noble Truths, which have remained virtually unscathed. However, the point of greatest importance, the way to the end of suffering, is unfortunately a mistranslation. Samma does not mean "right" but perfection. So that Sammaditthi is "Perfect View" rather than "Right View." It's not much of a difference, a semantic difference really, but when you consider Christian Moralism and their infatuation with doing what is "right" even though it is most of the time wrong, it is easy to see how this mistranslation can really derail the meaning behind the noble truths. Whenever you think of "right" speech and "right" effort, you assume you must imitate something that is correct, rather than going towards the more abstract idea of perfection. This is further eroded by Theravada Buddhism since they often advocate "no self" theories.

To put it simply, if you are Perfection, all you must do is realize this, rather than if you were Imperfection, you would have to toil in some way to become perfect, which it is impossible for Imperfection to make its way to Perfection. This is the great trap of the world. People believe they can surround themselves with imperfect material possessions and somehow make themselves happy, as if these inferior objects could heighten their soul which is already beyond these items in the first place. By attaching onto these items and viewing them as things of worth, the mind continuously becomes attached to the notion that these objects are real and unchanging despite the fact that it is the Self within that is unchanging.

Theravada Buddhism advocates like to say that the Buddha uses the term anatta, and so this means there is no self. He also says things like "there is no self within the five aggregates" and the theory of co-dependent origination means that one thing changes into another without a self to manipulate that change. And the most difficult passage to overcome is the Buddhas instruction to avoid theories of "is" and "is not" in addition to "both is and is not" or "neither is nor is not." From all this, the Theravada Buddhists are very confident that the Buddha taught a type of no soul-ism, and combine this with the mistranslation of Right View instead of the more accurate Perfect View, the Theravad Buddhists preach compassion and kindness to all beings rather than Moksha (Liberation). While compassion is not wrong, it does turn Buddhism from a Transcendental Religion to a Secular Moralist Religion. Atheistic of course, but also even Nihilistic. I actually don't even like calling Buddhism atheistic, since there is mention of 33 gods and various metaphysical planes, however the Buddha is a teacher of both gods and man, so the Tathagatta (thus gone one) is beyond a creator God or gods.

What then is the proof that the Buddha preaches a Soul? It comes from the fact that the methodology being employed is called Neti, Neti, meaning "not this, not that." And the phrase No Me So Atta, meaning "this is not my self." The five aggregates of Buddhism (form, feelings, perception, experience, and consciousness), is anatta, meaning NOT-self. Interestingly, you can't say anatta without ATTA meaning Self. So, the Buddhists must understand that when the Buddha says "No Me So Atta," he is saying "this is not my self," but that does not imply that there is no Self.

Listen to a few Buddhist quotations, and tell me if you think these sound atheistic or nihilistic.

"The Tathagata is without the mark of all things, he dwells upwards within the signless self-directed mind/will (citta). There within, Ananda, dwell with the Soul (attan) as your Light, with the Soul as your refuge, with none other as refuge." [SN 5.154, DN 2.100, SN 3.42, DN 3.58, SN 5.163]-Gotama Buddha

"The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto; it is the Light, that very same sanctuary, that final end goal and destiny. It is immeasurable, matchless, that which I really am, that very treasure; it is like unto the breath-of-life, this Animator.”[KN J-1441 Akkhakandam]

“The Aryan Eightfold Path is the path leading to immortality”

“This is immortality, that being the liberated mind/will (citta) which does not cling (after anything)” [MN 2.265]

“Attained the steadfast Soul, their mind/will (citta) is calm; they’re cleansed of the entire world, taintless they have become Brahman” [SN 3.83]

Most of these quotes come from the Nikayas, so that MN means majjhima nikaya and SN means samyutta nikaya. With all these references to immortality and soul, is it really logical to assume that Buddhism is "no-soul-ism?" Isn't it more logical to assume the Buddha used the phrase Anatta and No Me So Atta to indicate through negative terminology (not this, not that) that the Soul exists?

The goal of Buddhism is to Become Brahman, the supreme reality. Although Brahman is not God (Brahma is technically God or Creator), Brahman with an "n" is the supreme reality, which is the Atman. Atman is Brahman, the dictum of the Upanishads, which Buddhism is not contrary to. How could one say Atman (Self) is Brahman, if there is no Atman?







[edit on 29-1-2010 by ancient_wisdom]

I've read the OP through one and a half times

then had to go away so my mind could try to untangle itself

It's a well-written post that does it's best to render the varying versions of Buddhism comprehensible to others

However, it's too complicated for me. Maybe it will become clearer as time passes

I'd been toying with the idea of exploring Buddhism, because I wanted away from the Abrahamic faiths and because the alleged Buddhist advice to 'relinquish attachments' struck a chord within me

After reading your post though, it appeared that Buddhism, like all the other major faiths, is subject to factions and wranglings

So for the time being, I'll stick to my own simplistic, probably part-Pagan beliefs

reply to post by Dock9


I recommend meditation and whatever philosophy book you can understand as a precursor to Buddhism. This thread was meant more as a technical response to Theravada Buddhism.

The Self within is immortal.
Free of suffering is the Soul.
To become Brahman is the meaning of life.
Samsara is like a cycle
desire is the fuel
reincarnation is the product
Insight is what liberates and stops this motion
Wisdom is what frees one's self from this motion.

The Soul is the light within
The body is the entity
separated are the two by attachment to the world
Desire for liberation is Dharma
Let go of the attachments, and turn the mind towards itself.
Turn the mind and see within.
Hold this until it absorbs into you.
And you see a light shining.

This is enlightenment.
Wisdom is the final step,
restraining the desire
and living unattached
to things that give harm.

This is how to meditate and maintain a state of samadhi.

reply to post by ancient_wisdom


Thank you

Makes sense and I like it

Another great thread ancient wisdom.

I agree with you. Orthodox Buddhism is a nihilistic and irrational religion.
Buddha's teachings have been distorted I think, like Jesus's teachings. And again just like you find the more authentic Jesus's teachings in esoteric or gnostic Christianity, similarly you find the authentic Buddha's teachings in the esoteric or gnostic Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism. Truly the greater vehicle.

reply to post by ancient_wisdom


I also come from a Catholic background. To say this religion has no soal misses the point. One concept looks at two distinct ellements. In this religion the soal is not immutable but is transatory. The soal is often tied to the concept of personality. The personality is an illusion. It takes the shape of the vessal. In our reality it takes a shape that is the amalganm of this reality. The Budaha said that only when one frees one self from this reallity will you be able to open your mind into the universal mind. This cosmic mind is called heaven, or nervana. When you get to that point you stop the cycle of reincarnation.

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom
The Self within is immortal.
Free of suffering is the Soul.
To become Brahman is the meaning of life.
Samsara is like a cycle
desire is the fuel
reincarnation is the product
Insight is what liberates and stops this motion
Wisdom is what frees one's self from this motion.

The Soul is the light within
The body is the entity
separated are the two by attachment to the world
Desire for liberation is Dharma
Let go of the attachments, and turn the mind towards itself.
Turn the mind and see within.
Hold this until it absorbs into you.
And you see a light shining.

This is enlightenment.
Wisdom is the final step,
restraining the desire
and living unattached
to things that give harm.

This is how to meditate and maintain a state of samadhi.

I am not a Buddhist but I absolutely love this post above. Are these your own words? they are amazing. They say exactly what I have come to believe and what I meditate upon.

Thank you for posting this.

No way is THE right way. Remember that most doctrines are fundamentally transfigured. Even some of the Hindu texts delve into insignificant rituals such as swallowing towels, drinking salt water and crapping it out, sticking threads in your nose, etc.
Buddhism was generally a pragmatic religion. Buddha emphasized that you should not be focusing on whether there is a next life or not, but should be preoccupied in the now. However, remember that he spoke of remembering his past lives during meditation under the Boddhi Tree.

Regardless of what atheists claim, Buddha did speak about souls (in the context of incarnation, re-incarnation, Lotus Land, soul-travel etc.

Its just that he didnt put emphasis on it.

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom
The Self within is immortal.
Free of suffering is the Soul.
To become Brahman is the meaning of life.
Samsara is like a cycle
desire is the fuel
reincarnation is the product
Insight is what liberates and stops this motion
Wisdom is what frees one's self from this motion.

The Soul is the light within
The body is the entity
separated are the two by attachment to the world
Desire for liberation is Dharma
Let go of the attachments, and turn the mind towards itself.
Turn the mind and see within.
Hold this until it absorbs into you.
And you see a light shining.

This is enlightenment.
Wisdom is the final step,
restraining the desire
and living unattached
to things that give harm.

This is how to meditate and maintain a state of samadhi.

This is an excelllent post I shall leave you a star.

Also this is an interesting topic, especially since it was a year ago that I took a philosophy class on the very nature of Buddhism. In which we read a book by D.T. Suzuki about the nature and essence of it pretty insightful.

Now as for the OP I shall apologize first and foremost as I am in a rush and I have at least a million thoughts rushing through my mind that I am trying to pay attention to at once. It isn't per say that Buddhism is soul-less, but more or less as SkyFloating has stated is that they don't put to much emphasis on it, I also do not think it is about "perfection."

I suppose it is the nature of "Zen" that makes it seem almost as 'soul-less' but more or less it seems like one becomes more intuned with the consciousness - which in a way the consciousness in some religions ( maybe even Buddhism ) consciousness can be seen as "soul" in a way also.

Again sorry, but trying to write another philosophical paper, philosophical readings, and an art project. I at least wanted to get some of my thoughts down and hopefully tomorrow during lunch time I can give a better analysis and even find my book by Suzuki as well as my notes from that class.

[edit]
Forgot to say Star and Flag to you OP

[edit on 31-1-2010 by Gigantea Rosa]

"Tantric mystics who follow the discipline of kundalini yoga reject the notion of Being as empty or void of energy. Their mystic experiences are charged through and through with the power dance of the coiled energy. Naturally therefore they experience the ultimate ground of the universe as Being-Energy. In consequence, the world of change and multiplicity also is perceived as the real manifestation of the creative energy of being."

The first thing to realize is that Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion. It was never meant to be a religion, and it isn't.

Secondly, this "nihilistic" notion that Buddhism seems to have is rather easy to understand, though frightening to the western mind. It is a concept of losing individuality. This is inconceiveable to the western mind.
The western culture is very much based upon individuality.

The Asian culture is very different. There is not the fear of losing one's individuality or "personality." Why. They view things as being singular, not piece meal.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
The first thing to realize is that Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion. It was never meant to be a religion, and it isn't.

Secondly, this "nihilistic" notion that Buddhism seems to have is rather easy to understand, though frightening to the western mind. It is a concept of losing individuality. This is inconceiveable to the western mind.
The western culture is very much based upon individuality.

The Asian culture is very different. There is not the fear of losing one's individuality or "personality." Why. They view things as being singular, not piece meal.

Actually that would depend on which Buddhism we are talking of. In my Japanese culture class, my teacher made sure that we know that Japanese Buddhism is different from the Indian Buddhism due to Confucianism that moved in. Although it primarily merged with Shintoism, it also made a few changes to Buddhism in that same light.

I also think "The Sword and the Chrysanthemum" is a good indication of a westerner trying to get in touch with Japanese mentality. It basically agrees with everything you have stated in the second and third paragraph you mentioned.

Actually before I end on this note, I'd like to return to the first and would like to add that Buddhism seems to encompass both a religion and philosophical meaning to it's name, the same with a few other religions. Each have a philosophical meaning underlying their various religious texts and worship. At least it seems that way to me, I could be very wrong about all this though .

reply to post by ancient_wisdom


Buddha emphasized that we should examine a path rather than
follow it blindly. You've made several worthwhile points that are important
to examine.

Mainstream Buddhism is Theravadin in Thailand, Myamnmar-(country
formerly known as Burma), Cambodia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka and a few others.

Mainstream Buddhism is Mahayana in Taiwan, parts of China, Japan,
and South Korea.

Mainstream Buddhism is Vajrayana in Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim.

The west is an amalgam of various Buddhist yanas.

Seems to me that Buddha prefers to teach about the mind and the
true nature of mind. A lot of English translations are mistranslations
with translators substituting words like soul for mind. If you think
that soul is mind then you're okay-if you think that soul is something
other than mind than you will run into trouble.

Okay what re-incarnates? Buddha teaches that mind re-incarnates.
A lot of western spirituality would rather say soul. What's the difference?
Western ideas of soul tend to be eternalistic, that there is a permanent
soul that re-incarnates. Western ideas tend to mix ego with this soul
whereas in Buddhism one cuts the root of ego to free oneself from samsara.
Ego as a delusion that there is a fixed innate solidified self. The reason
ego is an illusion is because if there were a permanent self than how
could it harmonize and continue in the universal flux? Shantideva said
that if a self is permanent it would have no function.

Let's cut to the chase. The Madhyamika considered the highest philosophical
writings on the self in Buddhism says that we can't prove the existence
of self, no-self, both and neither. Why? Because the goal-enlightenment
or nirvana is beyond concepts. That's why the best meditation is non-
conceptual meditation. Enlightenment is non-duality.
Concepts are dualistic.
Even the concept of non-duality is dualistic whereas the open-minded enlightened mind is not limited concepts.
Just as a concert violinist just plays
beyond concepts of thinking about
"I have to put my finger here then draw the bow. "
Such concept making would be a limitation and twist the violinist into knots and take them out of the moment.
The ZONE as musicians and artists call it.

Buddha teaches that the mind is emptiness-again often mistranslated
in the West as only the void. And that would be nihilistic.
However Buddha teaches that Emptiness is unconfined empty cognizance.
You have to have cognizance otherwise what knows that there is
openminded unlimited, infinite space? This cognizance is also referred
to as clear light, luminous awareness and Buddha-nature.

To sum up Buddha teaches that the mind has 3 aspects.
The nature of mind is emptiness.
The essence of mind is clarity.
The wisdom action of mind is compassion.

Therefore due to this cognizance, luminous awareness, clear light or
the dozens of other labels for it there is the refutation of nihilism.

I am not Buddhist, but I always saw it more as a surrender of self than a denial of self.

It is like, to me, mind hacking the I-program so that it causes a buffer overflow. Suddenly you find yourself a lucid consciousness in control of the entire system.

Budhism is more of a backlash against social programming. It is what takes us out of all the social pressure, in order to more truly be ourselves, to find out exactly what it is to be free to be us. Buddhism is a return to true nature. It is far from nihilism, in that nihilism is largely expressed through materialism, and most forms of buddhism are the antithesis of material.

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom
..... However, it took me a while to realize that the majority of Buddhism on the internet is nihilistic, "no-soul Buddhism" and although I rejected this outright since I had a philosophical understanding of metaphysics, it took me a while to realize the depth of emptiness that these so called enlightening Buddhist religions had.

Emptiness was an important concept for me when first understanding Buddhism. It meant that the physical world is an illusion, a veil. It is pointless to desire things of the world. I saw the shallowness of people going after material possessions and political power. It was nonsense. It was contrary to, and inferior to, the light of wisdom within. This meditative bliss which I experience in meditation is beyond doubt in my mind. I know it exists because I have experienced it. As a result, I was able to learn Buddhism even with all of its nihilistic "no-soul-ism."

If Buddhism is "no-soul-ism" or "nihilistic," then who is 'this' that witnesses the bliss???

I am that!

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom
When I first started studying Buddhism, I was amazed at how a religion could seem so logical, compared to my upbringing as a Catholic and Christian. However, it took me a while to realize that the majority of Buddhism on the internet is nihilistic, "no-soul Buddhism" and although I rejected this outright since I had a philosophical understanding of metaphysics, it took me a while to realize the depth of emptiness that these so called enlightening Buddhist religions had.

When you say "majority of Buddhism on the internet," do you speak of an actual majority or only a majority written in the Latin alphabet of the modern English language? And when you speak of this majority, do you at all include Zen Buddhism?

Emptiness was an important concept for me when first understanding Buddhism. It meant that the physical world is an illusion, a veil. It is pointless to desire things of the world. I saw the shallowness of people going after material possessions and political power. It was nonsense. It was contrary to, and inferior to, the light of wisdom within. This meditative bliss which I experience in meditation is beyond doubt in my mind. I know it exists because I have experienced it. As a result, I was able to learn Buddhism even with all of its nihilistic "no-soul-ism." But now that I am more able to express myself, I would like to say something about mainstream Buddhism, which is technically called Theravada, and say some things about what I think is close enough to original Buddhism, which is none other than the Self-ism of the Upanishads.

Could I ask you to take the time to further define what you are calling "nihilistic no-soul-ism," so that I can understand exactly how you're categorising Buddhism as it? From a first glance, and from my limited understanding of Buddhism; what you are saying here (in the two quotes above) appears to me at the moment to be "incorrect."

To put it simply, if you are Perfection, all you must do is realize this, rather than if you were Imperfection, you would have to toil in some way to become perfect, which it is impossible for Imperfection to make its way to Perfection. This is the great trap of the world. People believe they can surround themselves with imperfect material possessions and somehow make themselves happy, as if these inferior objects could heighten their soul which is already beyond these items in the first place. By attaching onto these items and viewing them as things of worth, the mind continuously becomes attached to the notion that these objects are real and unchanging despite the fact that it is the Self within that is unchanging.

(emphasis added)

In the emboldened and emphasised ending of your quote, is that your own view or a view you're attributing to one of the many schools of Buddhism? My understanding (and not an understanding I necessarily subscribe to) would say that "everything," including "self," or "soul" (if there is such a thing) is forever changing and impermanent (impermanent in the sense of a fixed "Immortal Soul," that has always been the same and doesn't "change," rather than something that "perishes" and ceases to "exist"). Something like a constant adaptation, evolution (and devolution) of learning and growing. I say "something like" because ultimately anything I can say about it is merely a construct limited by my language and therefore only just barely represents what's really going on (if there's anything going on at all, which there may not be). If anything, your concept of a “fixed-self,” or “fixed-soul” provokes far more nihilism in me (and I'm already a bit of a moral nihilist) than anything Buddhism has ever said.

This understanding may be completely "wrong," but if it "isn't" then it may indicate a misunderstanding on your part of Buddhist concepts of "no self," or as you're calling it "no-soul-ism," of which concepts I consider the Buddhists to mean something like "no fixed self," as well as meaning a "self" that we only call a "self" for the reasons of identifying "one another" in the material realms. Like "we're one, but we're not the same," as in not the same here, in this realm.

Skipping several paragraphs, you will now bring me to my next point:

How could one say Atman (Self) is Brahman, if there is no Atman?

You can blame the Ancient Greek, Aristotle, a man who's logic still deeply permeates our reasoning today, for your problems in understanding this apparent paradox of some kind. Aristotelian logic states that a "thing" must either be one "thing" or another, black or white, without it being able to be both at the same time. And this is, in my opinion and very limited understanding, one of the primary hurdles Westerners will face when confronted with certain Asian concepts. Until Quantum Physics, the ability to grasp duality almost killed The West.

I apologise in advance for any mistakes I've made in this post, because despite it only being 10 past 5pm (GMT), I've managed to get myself fantastically drunk on Napoleon Brandy and White Rum. I won't notice if anything I've said here makes any sense until sometime tomorrow afternoon, if ever at all.



[edit on 1-2-2010 by Cadbury]

The focus of Buddhism cannot be defined as "Soul" the way the western tradition has it. In any Buddhist text, words like "soul" or "salvation" or the like are just remote aliases for what is being expressed.

In my view, Buddhism is atheistic (although Deities are mentioned numerous times -- they are just not crucial to anything, it's just another step in progression, it's almost like a different species compared to Man but that's about it).