What Do You Mean We Have No Soul?

[@Jigokucake-lg1xj]

The man in the Instagram video you showed is espousing the view of the Shrenikans (didn't think Shrenika would be invoked again after your video on AI, huh? lol). A passage from Dogen's summary of the supposed Shrenikan viewpoint: "... when this body of ours perishes, this soul-like nature sloughs it off and is reborn somewhere else. As a result, even though it appears to perish in the here and now, it will have its rebirth in another place, never perishing, but always abiding unchanged." Shrenika actually appears in the Pali Suttas and Agama Sutras. He was a wanderer who was intent on finding the true nature of the "self" and the cosmos. In one of the stories, he asks the Buddha "... does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The soul & the body are the same'... ?" to which Shakyamuni replies "no." He then asks "then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... ?" To which Shakyamuni also replies "no." If this was not enough to counter the bald dude's point, a passage from the Lankavatara Sutra refutes it more directly: "An ego-soul [atman] is a truth belonging to thought-construction, in which there is no real reality; the self-nature of the Skandhas is also a thought-construction, as there is no reality in it." This takes the position that the soul is not found in the skandhas, but also that the notion of a soul conceived of as abiding outside of the skandhas is also illusory.

[@KaviKarnapuraDasa]

Thanks for touching on this daunting topic, Brad! Here are a few ideas from someone who has spent time in Vedāntic and Buddhist circles: 1) The Judeo-Christian idea of ‘soul’ is not exactly equivalent to the Vedāntic idea of the Ātman. So, when talking about the ‘soul’ we will have to keep this distinction in mind. 2) Hare Krishna is ‘mass-market’ Vedānta, while good intentioned for the most part, don’t expect a nuanced philosophically robust presentations or translations from them. The Hare Krishna’s claim to be aligned with Madhvācārya, a medieval Vedāntin who held ideas that are extreme at times and at odds with his notable more moderate predecessors such as Rāmānuja and Ādi Śaṅkarācārya. 3) Bhagavad-Gītā is a summary study of the Upaniṣads and although representing the teachings of Vedānta in a compact poetic form, we will have to turn to hardcore philosophical texts such as the Brahmasūtra and its commentaries for a deep philosophical understanding of the Ātman and Brahman. 4) As Adam Mizner mentioned anattā (or, anātman) is an adjective. Actually, if the Buddha wanted to deny the Ātman, he could have just used the term nirātman (‘non-self’) to describe his position. He never does that, because such a position would be nihilistic. Instead, he prefers to consistently use anatta to describe the five khandhas (skandha-s). 5) Philosophically, the self (Ātman) of Vedānta is never a ‘thing’, it is never the object of knowledge, it ‘illuminates’ objective reality with awareness itself. I would suggest checking out the fantastic contribution of Swami Sarvapriyananda, he has a background in Vedānta along with Mādhyamaka and Yogācāra from Harvard. You can find him here on KZbin. 6) Your conclusion at (20:15) invokes the Bhagavad-Gīta, almost verbatim: ‘brahma na sat tan nāsad’ Bg 13.13, Brahman is beyond being and non-being.

[@robertcollier6274]

Nice intro! Diggin’ the lower register

[@ryancagerbaker]

Q: Slice of reality? A: Just a small one, I’m on a diet.

[@AtsAreStupid]

Exactly why I switched to no sugar variants of reality.

[@je.1525]

Hey brad, id love to hear you and swami sarvapriyanada have a conversation. Bring some buddhist and vedanta together. The Upanishads speak of the eternal Self, atman, bhraman, as being different from that which is experienced as self, mind and body. But is the Self which experiences. It seems resonable the buddha would have encountered the upanshid ideas in his time. Again id love to hear you and swami sarvapriyanada talk. My only take is that all sages, saints, and religious concepts may differ, but the underlying theme within all is the eternal amongst the transient. The silence of sound. The being of nonbeing. Unity amongst multiplicity.

[@austinpauley599]

Hey Brad, I was wondering if you could do a video about Nagarjuna, I recently purchased a book that Nishijima Roshi had translated and you are a commentator. I had no idea this book existed up until recently. I already had a translation by Garfield. I was super excited to see you on the cover. Instant buy. Regardless, thanks so much and keep it up!!!

[@jerryalder2878]

Yes indeed. Nagarjuna is a key figure in Mahayana Buddhism and is recognised in Zen lineages and his work is studied in Tibetan traditions.

[@brothermike316]

In Old Testament Hebrew, humans and animals are equally “nepes” (breathers), which is what we became when God breathed life into us. There is no hard dualism between body and the soul. We are, at least until death, the inseparable integration of body and soul, both God-given and good. Later neo-platonism and Gnosticism were much more inclined to separate body from soul, to the point of painting the body evil and the soul good.

[@shekhinah5985]

Didn't Gnosticism have body, psyche and pneuma?

[@brothermike316]

@ I’m sure you’re correct - I’m no expert in Gnosticism but I believe at least a separation of body was implicit.

[@Teller3448]

Buddha used the word CITTA in the same way Hindus use the word ATMAN. The Pali Text Society translates Citta as 'Heart'. But its usually translated as 'Mind'. There is a good video explanation of this from a Pali translator called... "Citta / Mind / Spirit in earliest Original Buddhism"

[@chrisplaysdrums09]

Citta is not used in the same way as atman. I can see how you might get that impression, but it’s simply not the case. There are teachings directly opposed to this claim in both the Pali schools and the Mahayana. Citta refers to the mind. Atman refers to an eternal “self” or soul.

[@Teller3448]

@@chrisplaysdrums09 "Citta refers to the mind. Atman refers to an eternal “self” or soul." Citta is sometimes translated as MIND and sometimes as HEART. Some Chinese texts use a double character meaning translated as 'heart-mind'. And yes, in the original Pali texts it is eternal. If you watch the video I noted there are many references to this from a Pali translator quoting directly from the original texts.

[@dillonarreo2232]

The law of conversation says energy can not be created or destroyed.. If there is reincrantion, what is being recranated, if there is no soul, ( or energy) to recarnate??? If we are part of a whole, then we don't have a self soul, we are everyone's soul.... geeze it all gets way to confusing

[@thatregiskid]

What you described as manas is actually the ahamkara (roughly translates to ego). I think a big part of the journey is realizing that the ahamkara and Atman are not the same, but are related in the way that pot is to clay. In truth the pot is nothing but clay, though the pot has a name, a form, and a use. I think you've used the wave/ocean/water metaphor, so it would be cool to see you do a video on your thoughts on the Vedantan Clay Pot metaphor. :)

[@adgibsonphoto]

Oh wow! I thought I was the only person who remembered that song from Dark Star. What a strange and deep movie for something that looks like a budget film.

[@TYPHON2713]

As soon as I heard "soul drives the body" I KNEW you were gonna bring the hare keishnas inro it😂 Next time at least give me an ISKON trigger warning...😂😂😂

[@joeg3950]

Us westerners are stuck on the soul because its Judeo-Christian meaning, inferences, and concepts from birth. Plus, like you said, categorizations/typologies make things easier for us to deal with our perceived reality. It's dangerous to the do that and it's bad for you. Viva Ziggy!!

[@philmcdonald6088]

"a little learning is a dangerous thing drink deep or taste not the pierian spring" (alexander pope: an essay on criticism)🐭 hi ziggy.

[@Being_Joe]

Our souls have bodies

[@HardcoreZen]

Whose souls?

[@EvanBerry.]

Back to the Future is my favorite movie! What a great outfit for Ziggy. "Hey, doggie, what did you do, jump ship? What's with the life preserver?" By the way, that gentleman's starting premise, that the absence of a soul renders spiritual practice nothing more than psychology, is a huge assumption, and I wish instead of starting there he had explained his logic.

[@gunterappoldt3037]

Me thinks, Mr. Mizner thinks that “spiritual practice“ needs to go transcendental, so to speak, i.e. to inquire theoretically-practically into the “conditions of the possibility“ (I. Kant) of organic psycho-somatic “conscious being“ (alias body-mind).

[@houseson]

I think you make a good point. It manifests when sitting more than when talking about it. An image of a soul or whatever now is something you take with you, a concept Concepts are fine when talking, thinking, writing but taking into sitting, I have doubts that it is helpful. Also, Adam Mizner is well known in the Tai Chi/ internal arts circle.

[@JimTempleman]

Great explanation! Thank you.

[@austinpauley599]

Great video BTW. Thank you.

[@mgrayta]

Dark Star!! How could it live if it was just full of air?

[@markbrad123]

Well if we end up as nothing, there is nothing to be upset about being nothing. I can understand thought why people think there must be something that contnues. We don't know everything so may there is something else going on we don't know about yet ?

[@sugarfree1894]

It fell apart for him, in my view, when he said that by virtue of the fact that the psychophysical is not the soul, it therefore 100% follows that everything that is not the psychophysical IS the soul. That's just poor logic, like saying that the fact that a cat is not a dog means that everything that is not a cat, is a dog. No.

[@danzacjones]

Best intro ever 😂

[@reedrichards8677]

does zen ever talk about the wheel turning monarch?

[@ChasRMartin]

Great wallpaper

[@soneraydn2925]

Hi Brad. In Buddhism, the idea of having no soul seems to contradict with the belief in reincarnation. If a person does not have a soul, then what is the thing/stuff that passes from one life to the next one? I myself am skeptical about both reincarnation and the existence of soul, but I wonder how Buddhism resolves this apparent contradiction within its belief system.

[@kevindole1284]

The theory is that what passes from body to body is not "soul" but "self" (ego). The self is a real thing that can be experienced and can last for some time but it is not indestructible or immortal. It is, like all things, a product of various causes and conditions. Think of a flame being passed from candle to candle. It is real and can continue for sometime but is ultimately temporary. When the sense of self is extinguished, it is called "Nirvana." Most serious Buddhists experience Nirvana at some point - even if only temporarily. Something persists in the body after nirvana but that "something" is not a unique to the body or the experiences of the self. It is the universal life force common to all things. But like a flame rising from coals, the self can rise again in the body due to ongoing karma. This is quite common. However, when the body dies while the sense of self is extinguished it is called "Paranirvana" and the self will not be reborn in another body. This is what happened to the Buddha.

[@soneraydn2925]

@kevindole1284 Thanks for the clarification. That sounds very similar to the idea of "henosis" in the Western esoteric tradition.

[@HardcoreZen]

Here's one of th videos I made about this: kzbin.info/www/bejne/laPUhWOEpsiZjJYsi=ZePWJUtqB3j5zgPQ

[@soneraydn2925]

@@HardcoreZen Thanks Brad.

[@Teller3448]

@@kevindole1284 "Most serious Buddhists experience Nirvana at some point" What is it that experiences Nirvana?

[@HeikkiLiitoksia]

flagship web-sites

[@JamesAtkerson]

Firewood is not ashes. Ashes are not firewood.

[@scottphris]

then what is firewood and what is ashes

[@Mocking_Bird_85]

⁠🍿

[@Traumatose]

I've had difficulty understanding mr Mizners take on Buddhism for about a year, trying to see how his views meld with the teachings. Now it seems to me he isn't a Buddhist at all. Maybe in a year I'll think different.

[@jerryalder2878]

Indeed it is his 'take' on Buddhism.

[@paulsagerman5111]

👍, I think.

[@HeikkiLiitoksia]

okay is this ananda seva hahaa I know a lot of how it works

[@wthomas5697]

Yeah, soul is a b.s. concept.

[@MrBalthazar78]

Soul was just rebranded as “Mind” or “Buddha nature” by Mahayana Buddhists. It’s semantic.

[@memesmojo5622]

No, read the writings of Sridhar Rana Rinpoche, he practiced both Hinduism and Buddhism

[@MrBalthazar78]

appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Maybe if you could give this person’s argument we can debate it on its merits?. It’s a problem Mahayana Buddhists fail to contend with. It’s a big philosophical problem. It’s one of the major reasons Theravada rejects Mahayana.

[@memesmojo5622]

@@MrBalthazar78 im not appealing to authority, im telling you to read his writings where he provides the arguents and explanations

[@MrBalthazar78]

@ ok then you should talk to any Theravada novice monk so he can debunk it.

[@Aldarinn]

Madhyamaka Buddhism=Advaita Vedanta.

[@WrongWorld23]

What about Dzogchen?

[@felixpliske989]

Nerds :)