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

[Green]

@srkris

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.

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.

[christie]

@srkris

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.

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).

[Buddhadasa]

I’m re-posting this piece with a couple of small corrections as I accidentally deleted the earlier reply.

I’m surprised no one has so far mentioned manomaya-kāya - Mind-created-body. manōmaya-kaya is described as a body ‘obtained’ (realised is better) by the practitioner at the stage of the fourth Jhāna. However, also know as the Body of Virtues it is present in, associated with, all of us. So yes, there is a soul, albeit one that’s impermanent and, ipso facto, capable of spiritual development. Incidentally, there is no such entity as a disembodied mental state, e.g. consciousness. mano/rupa are codependent.

“With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating manomaya-kāya. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. Just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath. The thought would occur to him: ‘This is the sheath, this is the reed. This sheath is one thing, the reed another, but the reed has been drawn out from the sheath.’ Or as if a man were to draw a sword from its scabbard. The thought would occur to him: ‘This is sword, this is the scabbard.’ Or as if a man were to pull a snake out from its slough. The thought would occur to him: ‘This is the snake, this is the slough. The snake is one thing, the slough another, but the snake has been pulled out from the slough.’”7

7 Thanissaro Bhikkhu, tr. Samaññaphala Sutta

[srkris]

@Layman

Perhaps you can share your thoughts on this and the Bahiya sutta on the following thread.

I have read now a lot of what the book has to say - and I find it excellent. I can’t say that I agree with it 100% but probably over 90% of it is spot-on in my estimation.

Particularly the places where he shows the correspondences between the Vedic texts (including the upanishads) and the EBTs & Jain texts are like historically very fascinating. I had been aware of a lot of such correspondences myself but he takes them to the next level. It is too much to take in so I will continue to read it in detail in the coming months. Most translations of the EBTs need to be revised in light of the things that Jayatillake has brought up.