The soul in Buddhism

[John Doe]

My limited readings in Buddhism, such as the Book of the Dead, have led me to a view that the soul is not something Buddhists believe in. Am I right in this?

I am completely open to correction, and wish to be properly informed. I may have read the bare ideas and missed nuances.

[Ilya Kralinsky]

These are purely extrapolations from my readings and -- if you care to call them such -- studies, but it seems Buddhism references, "the Void." Even John Lennon sang, "Lay down all thoughts/surrender to the Void," in Tomorrow Never Knows from Revolver. It's a great question, and one that should constantly and vigorously be pursued, and the reason I am comfortable with the idea arrives in science.

Most theologies describe alternate dimensions known as Heaven, Hell, some reference Purgatory, and physics discusses the idea of trillions of alternate realities or different dimensions. This would honestly back some theological claims, as by necessity of difference, some would have to be places where we win all the time, some where there is nothing but misery. Using this as a framework, examine the proven scientific idea that energy never dies, but it simply changes form. From this, we can go to the scientific extreme in saying, "The potential energy of the body degrades into the Earth, replenishes the Earth, provides the energy that goes into crops, feeds many children (we hope), the energy goes into the water, and without prior consciousness (because the personality is in the brain, and the brain dies with the body), or the consciousness we've known, we are vectored through the mechanisms of the Earth to live through millions of others." This conforms to the Buddhist notion of the Void. If we were to go to another extreme ... let's say the traditional notions of the basic energy of the individual somehow surviving intact beyond the body -- after all, we can see emotions and thoughts on MRI, but we cannot define the Control Center, as it were -- then we can understand the idea this consciousness goes to another dimension, and therefore is void to this reality. Physics states there could be ten or eleven dimensions, but where we see height, width, depth and the displays of space-time (two objects not occupying the same space at the same time), these other dimensions have been described as being like a sheet of paper rolled up: we see it head on, we only know it has height and width, but when rotated, we see it also has depth; these other dimensions would be beyond our level of perception. Without a human mechanism of perception, this would be beyond description, or the outcome would possess so many potentials the ordinary human brain would see it as Void, even if it were all things occupying all space at the same time.

One of the keys to remember about Buddhism, and especially Zen Buddhism, is the nature of the communication. There is a lot of symbolism, a lot of seemingly mystery, and this is to spur thought. Nothing is to be taken as absolute in Buddhism. The Buddha once sat in front of his priests, scanned over their faces, and then held up a lotus flower, to which only one priest in the front smiled with tears of joy. The Buddha knew he understood what he was saying with the holding of the lotus flower. If anything, where many philosophies and religions are filled with absolutes, Buddhism is aimed at the liberation of the individual through his own path, and hence cannot be burdened with absolutes.

Long story short: science supports much of the idea of not so much the soul not existing as what can only be a Void described hereafter, science supports that argument in some ways (entirely hypothetical and extrapolated), and, to reiterate your enlightened view, I can only present what I've researched and read, so if anyone has any further, deeper insight, I would mostly gladly and eagerly entertain that.

Ah, another point: anything I present, I will simply say, "This is the realm and extent of my knowledge, this is theoretical, this is hypothetical, &c.," unless there is some established fact in it. Most anything philosophical and religious is open to interpretation and debate.

Wow, thank you, John, for visiting the boards! It's great to hear from you.

[John Doe]

There's a lot to take in there, and I'll reread, but your expression of The Void is new to me. I have come across the idea of energy flowing from one form to the other in Buddhism.

This stands out to me as a kernel in the above, "Buddhism is aimed at the liberation of the individual through his own path, and hence cannot be burdened with absolutes."

I stated elsewhere once, and then btw worried I expressed myself a bit rashly, that in my limited social interactions with practising Buddhists I had taken some feeling from them, from their manner of being, that communicated an emptiness to me at a quiet level that I had associated with the lack of a belief in the soul. I can reimagine this now as possibly the communication of The Void of which you speak. In either case, I meant and mean no disrespect.

Thank you for the generosity of your time, as ever, Ilya.

[John Doe]

Of course, the emptiness I felt might well have been due in some degree to a stepping away from the noise of the world.

[Ilya Kralinsky]

In a religion where one of the most famous sayings is, "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him," I don't think there's any such distinctions as respect or disrespect. There is the inquiring mind and the still mind, to be sure, always coered bt the umbrella of the compassionate mind. Here's how I would expand upon that emptiness:

Remember a child first born. You have no memories of this part of your life, as you've emerged into a new life form. If you take the notions of rebirth, as traditional Buddhism (born of Hinduism through Siddartha) does, you would emerge in a new life, unprepared for what you find; cling too much to your human view and your human tendencies, you will be hindered in this new life. Clear all preconceptions, putting words or labels on things corrupts them, and only by bringing the mind to the Void does one see all things for what they truly are, in their is-ness, or their thus-ness. The compassionate Buddhist mind sees things from the Void, that the man screaming at you that he wants to kill you is a child born like all others, only bruised deep inside and venting a need at you that is entirely his, entirely perceived and not real. This angry man deserves pity. There is a scene in Saint where Raymond has received more bad news, and just over a flat tire, he's about to attack his best friend; this points to the confusion in which we can all become trapped, but operating from the Void, where all of time and space has no meaning, Bennett sees Raymond in that instant as all the Raymonds, through his life's entirety, knows the injured child, prompting him to show the compassion that melts anger. Raymond is a pretty intimidating guy, but operating from the Void, from the Root, Bennett faces that danger to give compassion.

Your point is most fantastic, John, I tell you, and we could put exhaustive qualities on the notion of the Void, or attaining emptiness, eliminating distraction, being mindful, and operating above all of time and space, but I run the risk of boring you. Let us just say attaining emptiness removes the distraction of tis human brain and opens us to the true elegance and beauty of what things are in their simplest existence. While the empiness sounds scary, it is a profound liberation.