Can a Stream Enterer or even an Arahant have a soul?

The Watercooler
86

Its interesting that no one has commented on my drawing of a “square triangle”

I meditated on the possible existence of a “square triangle” and it seems that is possible to have an object that is a triangle on 2 sides and a square on 3 sides, so in a sense it is a “square triangle”.

Perhaps in the same way our soul/self/identity/attan is similar.

There is no doubt we have a strong sense of “self” - we readily distinguish what is “ourself” apart from the rest of the world. And we have a strong sense of identity.

So the question is what is the nature of this “self”?

The Buddha says our sense of self is linked to craving for the 5 aggregates, so it is not permanent, and it not atman. This again seems obvious, though may be difficult to accept for some. Our identity does seem to be tied to our sense perceptions, our consciousness and our cravings.

But I think it does beg the question: is there a “self” that is NOT dependent on the 5 aggregates? I think the Buddha is silent on this?

Because if there is no self transcending the aggregates, what exactly is it that achieves nibbana? Or does nibbana lead to non existence (ie. nihilism).

I’ve heard the Buddha treads the middle ground between an eternal soul and nihilism, which implies there is something, but we can’t describe it, just like we can’t describe nibbana except by what it is not.

Clearly we have accumulated karma that transcends rebirths, so there is again “something” which acts as a target for the karma.

In my diagram, I’ve modelled the triangle as the “self” that is attached to the 5 aggregates, and the square as something that we cannot normally perceive. I have then drawn the shadow as a sphere, indicating that what exists when we attain nibbana may be something else altogether.

Hope this makes sense.

87

You didn’t draw a square triangle.

Because if there is no self transcending the aggregates, what exactly is it that achieves nibbana? Or does nibbana lead to non existence (ie. nihilism)

Ultimately, when there is nibbana, we can’t speak of anything existing or not existing at all. So, we can’t say that anyone obtains Nibbana. In the end we can’t even speak of nibbana. When you let go of everything, nothing else is to be said.

88

It is said,

Gahakāraka diṭṭhosi,
puna gehaṁ na kāhasi
Sabbā te phāsukā bhaggā
gahakūṭaṁ visaṅkhataṁ
Visaṅkhāragataṁ cittaṁ
taṇhānaṁ khayamajjhagā.

Sacittapariyodapanaṁ
etaṁ buddhānasāsanaṁ

A swift pair of messengers’ is a term for serenity and discernment.
Sīghaṁ dūtayugan’ti kho, bhikkhu, samathavipassanānetaṁ adhivacanaṁ.

‘The lord of the city’ is a term for consciousness.
Nagarassāmī’ti kho, bhikkhu, viññāṇassetaṁ adhivacanaṁ.

How can that be? Surely the eye cannot see itself.

That would be true if there was no such power called ‘Sati’. For this purpose let’s call it memory. For example, emerging from first Jhana, reviewing knowledge of Jhana consciousness and so forth as Sankata, anicca, dukkha and Anatta is possible (Indeed according to one sutta I remember this is one of the opportunities for freedom). When nature of consciousness is understood in principle, there are no doubts about any form of consciousness.

I will end with this beautiful sutta excerpt,

yaṁ kho pana kiñci bhūtaṁ saṅkhataṁ paṭiccasamuppannaṁ nirodho tassa nissaraṇaṁ

PS: This will be my last post, I am really not qualified, trying to convince anyone, plus I am afraid of disrespecting the Dhamma with my mumblings. Farewell!

89

Hence my use of “quotes”

Unless you have actually experienced nibbana (in which case congratulations) then it’s hard to judge whether you are correct or not. We do know that it is not “nothing”, and in fact is described as the “ultimate reality” in Abhidhamma, and it can be “achieved” (because there is a specific set of cittas that lead to the realisation of nibbana). But it cannot be described to someone who has not achieved it.

The people that has attained nibbana in Buddha’s time did not suddenly cease all motion and stare into the horizon etc, they still led lives and had to eat, including the Buddha - who still fell sick from time to time. The only thing we know is that they won’t get reborn, but it’s never spelt out exactly what they become.

90

But consciousness itself is one of the five aggregates, so it also needs to be abandoned (or at least our “craving” for consciousness).

We do know nibbana is not a thought process (there is no citta associated with nibbana), and it is not a “state” that you enter in and out of. It is outside our notion of consciousness altogether.

91

Hi,
Have a square.

IMG_7667
IMG_76671920×2560 300 KB

Read this

92

In my understanding the reason why the Buddha takes the ātman for granted, while he simultaneously argues against an eternalist view of the ātman - is because eternalism is a concept conditioned on time i.e. there is no eternity possible/meaningful without time as a base, and time can be measured discretely (like space) - which probably means that it has to be finite. If the ātman is similarly conditioned by time, it wouldnt be the unconditioned that he takes it to be. Thus the eternalist conception of the ātman (being conditioned by time, and being measurable) is actually anātman (which in buddhism is associated with things that are anitya, and which are capable of giving rise to duḥkha). Since ātman is not describable as anātman, and nitya cannot be described as anitya either (as doing that would lead to reductio ad absurdum), the eternalist view is at odds with the ātman (and anātman) of Buddhism.

93

Of course they still had experiences. Those experiences can’t be said to be real or unreal though, as they are dependently originated. That’s nibbāna.

94

Very interesting perspective, and one that I need to ponder on a bit.

I am trying to grasp the existence of something that is neither eternal nor impermanent. Or can such a thing truly be said to “exist” - maybe existence itself is conditional, which may explain why the Buddha neatly sidesteps answering these sort of questions. Some interesting topics to ponder on my next meditation …

1 Like
95

Actually, I don’t think that’s nibbana. From what I understand, nibbana isn’t a “state” that you enter in and out of. Those who are “awakened” do not “enter” nibbana, they simply understand what nibbana is, and that knowledge allows them to prevent the arising of the “rebirth” thought process. But they still live out their lives as human beings, until such time they are ready to depart. What they “become” after that is an open question, and perhaps the word “become” itself is incorrect.

96

I don’t think I implied that it’s a state, although it is said to be a “state” in the suttas.

97

Well, as Wittgenstein famously said, “ What can be shown, cannot be said. “

The Buddha pointed to something that cannot be said, and cannot be arrived at through discursive thought.

Yet he showed us way, pointed us in the right direction.

98

Stephen,

I have a Buddhist joke for you.

1 Like
99

From Alagaddūpamasutta MN 22 https://suttacentral.net/mn22/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

Take a foolish person who memorizes the teaching—statements, songs, discussions, verses, inspired exclamations, legends, stories of past lives, amazing stories, and classifications. But they don’t examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom, and so don’t come to a considered acceptance of them. They just memorize the teaching for the sake of finding fault and winning debates. They don’t realize the goal for which they memorized them. Because they’re wrongly grasped, those teachings lead to their lasting harm and suffering. Why is that? Because of their wrong grasp of the teachings.

Now, take a gentleman who memorizes the teaching—statements, songs, discussions, verses, inspired exclamations, legends, stories of past lives, amazing stories, and classifications. And once he’s memorized them, he examines their meaning with wisdom, and comes to a considered acceptance of them. He doesn’t memorize the teaching for the sake of finding fault and winning debates. He realizes the goal for which he memorized them. Because they’re correctly grasped, those teachings lead to his lasting welfare and happiness. Why is that? Because of his correct grasp of the teachings.

About soul

Mendicants, it would make sense to be possessive about something that’s permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever. But do you see any such possession?”
“No, sir.”
“Good, mendicants! I also can’t see any such possession.
It would make sense to grasp at a doctrine of self that didn’t give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. But do you see any such doctrine of self?”
“No, sir.”
“Good, mendicants! I also can’t see any such doctrine of self.
It would make sense to rely on a view that didn’t give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. But do you see any such view to rely on?”
“No, sir.”
“Good, mendicants! I also can’t see any such view to rely on.
Mendicants, were a self to exist, would there be the thought, ‘Belonging to my self’?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Were what belongs to a self to exist, would there be the thought, ‘My self’?”
“Yes, sir.”
“But self and what belongs to a self are not acknowledged as a genuine fact. This being so, is not the following a totally foolish teaching: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After death I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever’?”
“What else could it be, sir? It’s a totally foolish teaching.”

100

Existence and non-existence are contingent (conditioned) on time and space. So it is not possible to declare either the existence or the non-existence of an unconditioned.

So the Buddha uses the term tathāgata in a similar vein when he declares that it is not possible to affirm that:

  1. ‘hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ - the tathāgata exists after death
  2. ‘na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ - the tathāgata does not exist after death
  3. ‘hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ - the tathāgata is in both states (existence and non existence) after death
  4. ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ - the tathāgata is in neither state (i.e. neither existence nor in non-existence) after death.

Here in these 4 statements of the tetralemma - whose death is he referring to if the tathāgata is the unconditioned? I think there is a logical fallacy if we take the tathāgata to be the historical buddha (in flesh and blood) who passed away. Here the tathāgata is taken to be the ātman (of Buddhism), the unconditioned. The one who passes away is not the tathāgata/ātman but the sarīra (body) composed of the khandhas (its physical and psychological constituents that have come together to make the organism exist and live, and which dissolve into nature after the organism’s death).

101

As promised, I have decided to reflect and meditate on whether it is possible to be neither eternal nor impermanent, and also neither exist nor not exist.

One possible hypothesis I have come up with relies on quantum mechanics and quantum probability theory.

In effect, our “self” is like a quantum unit of matter. Existence is not binary but a Hubert space of all possible existence states. The “self” can be likened to a vector in the Hubert space and a lifetime is effective a projection function on the Hubert space.

Just in case anyone thinks this is all theoretical rubbish, remember we can build quantum computers that can compute all possible results for a calculation simultaneously, so quantum mechanics is “real.”

This hypothesis does have a few advantages in that it “explains” what nibbana is (the Hubert space itself), as well as the experiences of the Buddha and the arahants, and curiously my own direct experience.

So according to this hypothesis, when an arahant “attains” nibbana, the arahant has the ability to perceive the Hubert space as a whole, and therefore traverse to any point in that lattice, and therefore have access to all past lives, as well as the ability to move to different points in the latttice (akin to the Buddha “ascending” into the various heavens to teach the devas etc.)

It also explains how arahants apparently lead a “mundane” earthly life until they pass away - they are simply continuing the trajectory of the projection function. When they finally pass away, they will not be reborn as they can “diffuse” the “self” across the entire Hubert space, thus preventing the probability function from coalescing into a new “life”.

In this way, it is possible to confirm the validity of all your four statements - the Buddha can neither be said to be existing, or not existing, or in both states, or in neither states, after death.

In a curious way, it also explains my own direct experience. I’ve had the ability to have lucid dreams for many years, but in recent year or so most of my dreams are not of my “self” but a different self living a different life. Perhaps these are past or alternate lives, but it seems my sub conscious is able to explore the Hubert space in ways my conscious mind is not yet able to do.

Thank you for inspiring me on this line of thinking, which I will need to ponder and reflect on more in the future.

1 Like
102

The soul in christian mystic traditions (for example of John of Cross) refers to a kind of inner force (workings) and knowledge (light/wisdom) that is always there, and most naturally will lead to detachment and purification. Like the sun aimlessly warms, the love and light of the soul aimlessly leads to the abandoning of all that is not God-like, not original, not sincere, dishonest, not truthful and not full of love and goodness.

Inside every human being, even the greatest sinner, is this light and working, according John. It leads naturally to the end of all self-views, and selfish desires.

The knowledge or light of the soul seems to be the understanding that selfishness is not oke and not how we are meant to live and be (by design or in a original way). Being selfish, self-honour, self-conceit, selfish longings are not truthful your own. It is adventious. It is a fall. Result of a wrong Path. The soul knows this.

The soul works this light in the person and that is its grace. At the same time it is a burden because it opposes selfish tendencies. So the light and love of the soul is also causing inner conflict, suffering. Like opposing forces or opposite directions.

In this sense, to postulate such a soul, also means that no one is really guideless and without teacher and teachings. According mystics this is not absent, but it can be shrouded. In silence, in inactivity, the natural light of the soul can be felt better and do its working with us. Some people ‘hear’ the information of the soul, some seem to be more or less deaf. But it is said that the calling of the soul is not absent.

I feel that ‘entering the stream’ might be not so different from entering into the inner stream of wisdom/light that will naturally lead to more and more detachment and purity and natural wisdom and goodness (love, compassion, no estrangement, unselfishness)

In this way the mystics talk about the soul, relating to human experience, even relating to spiritual development and transformation, the soul becomes more recognisable, less an alien concept, less a controversial concept, at least for me.

103

Interesting, but your post reads like science fiction (to me) - but that’s because I am not schooled in quantum physics. Perhaps quantum physics will (or already does) throw up something about the question of how the tathāgata or ātman could not fit any of the criteria on the tetralemma and still be a real referent - as you posit.

However it looks like Buddhism already makes sense even without help from quantum physics, as long as we understand what the texts are trying to say i.e. with simply a linguistic and logical understanding. The tetralemma (if I remember right) appears to apply to ātman, the loka (or the external cosmic world) and the tathāgata - these are the ones the Buddha remains silent on when questioned about their origins, end, existence, non-existence etc.

104

I have made a small personal study on this subjectmatter of the undeclared points.

Many people know that the Buddha did not declare : the Tathatagata exist, not exist, both exists as non-exist and nor exist nor does not exist after death . He also did not declare about the soul and body , the world. Many sutta’s give the reason why: it is not conducive to the goal, it does not lead to dispassion etc.

But i have seen that it would be a mistake (in my opinion) to think ‘undeclared’ means the same as ‘undecided’ (or unknown or left aside).

Take for example SN44.4, two fragments:

“Reverend, not truly knowing and seeing form (and the other khandhas, Green) its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation, one thinks ‘a Realized One still exists after death’ or ‘A Realized One no longer exists after death’ or ‘a Realized One both still exists and no longer exists after death’ or ‘a Realized One neither still exists nor no longer exists after death.’

"Truly knowing and seeing form … feeling … perception … choices … consciousness, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation, one doesn’t think ‘a Realized One still exists after death’ or ‘A Realized One no longer exists after death’ or ‘a Realized One both still exists and no longer exists after death’ or ‘a Realized One neither still exists nor no longer exists after death.’

So, i feel, one cannot say that this matter is really undecided or unknown or left aside.

Especially in SN44 much deeper explanation is given why the Buddha did not declare about the status of the Tathagata after death, about soul and body and about the world . There is much more said then that is not conducive to the goal.

In my opinion it comes down to: still thinking in this tetralemma like way, is still a sign of ignorance, not really seeing and knowing.

So, i have for myself concluded that ‘undeclared points’ is not the same as undecided points.

1 Like
105

There’s been a steady development in physics away from classical or Newtonian concepts (of matter being composed of fundamental particles - with a mental image of electrons swirling around a nucleus) to a state today where physics cannot really explain a lot of phenomena and indeed reads like science fiction.

We do know quantum states and probability functions are real - the location of an electron can no longer be precisely determined but is a probability function. So the electron cannot be said to physically exist, or not exist, at any specific location but can be described with various probabilities at different points.

We also have what is known at entangled electrons, where a group of electrons have aligned quantum states, and they maintain that alignment even when separated, potentially over great distances. This is not something we can explain at the moment, even though we can observe it.

I won’t be at all surprised that the Buddha may well be aware of all this, and it may or may not play into concepts of self and nibbana as I hypothesised, or perhaps there is an even deeper and complex relationship that we cannot fundamentally grasp.

I can understand why the Buddha wisely chose not to delve into any of these topics. Imagine explaining quantum entanglement to a layperson! Instead, the Buddha uses the simplistic (but not necessarily inaccurate) model of matter consisting of abstract earth, abstract fire, abstract air, and abstract water (or, to use modern physics terminology: mass, energy, repulsion and cohesion).