This is quite a tricky question. It could potentially lead to unending debates. Most Buddhists believe that Buddha did say that the soul does not exist.
But what is the truth?
I have touched upon this issue in my book “Buddha’s soul”. I intentionally titled the book that way both because this book discusses the crux of what Buddha preached, as well as to question the oft repeated claim that Buddha rejected the concept of soul.
I base my arguments on the Tipitakas, the original compilations of Buddha’s discourses that were orally transmitted verbatim during Buddha’s time and finally committed to writing a couple of centuries after Buddha. Though most Buddhists claim otherwise, I did not find any place in this voluminous set of books, where Buddha unequivocally declares that the soul does not exist.
Buddha does talk about soul. In many places he talks about what soul is not. For example he asks “Is body the soul?, Is body permanent or momentary?, Is mind the soul? Is mind permanent or momentary? Is feeling the soul? Is feeling permanent or momentary?....” and so on. Buddha seems to suggest that anything that is not eternal cannot be the soul. To say something is not something, that which is denied has to exist. Otherwise how does Buddha say that it is not that? He could have as well said that there is no soul. He never says that. He merely excludes things which are not soul.
Even in the Upanishads one can see the same approach when it comes to defining the soul or Atma. It is defined by negation. This is the well-known “not this, not this or Nethi Nethi” approach of the Upanishads. Some Upanishads even follow almost exact approach of Buddha in ruling out what is not soul. It only means that there IS something called soul but it is not what we can see or perceive. By no means it rejects the soul.
I feel that even Buddha’s words imply this negation approach while talking about the soul.
On some occasions Buddha discourages his disciples from talking about the soul. He gives two reasons for that.
Reason 1: Since the soul cannot be defined using words or by any amount of logic or reasoning, arguing about soul only ends up in mental agitation. Since Buddha’s approach is to finally attain a completely calm mind, anything that disturbs that calmness should be shunned. That is why Buddha says, “don’t get into arguments about soul. In no way that helps in attaining the final goal. It rather dissuades one from reaching the goal”.Reason 2: Even if someone manages to arrive at a notion of the soul that is eternal, that would induce a craving in the person to attain that eternal state. Any kind of craving only binds the person to the cycles of births and deaths rather than freeing him from it. That defeats the very purpose of his spiritual practice. Buddha feels that the desire such as “I want to be an eternal soul” is also a hurdle in the path of the practitioner. He tends to associate himself with some ‘form’ rather than free himself from all notions of forms and individual existence.
This is roughly how Buddha deals with the concept of soul. He discourages useless pursuits that are not conducive to furthering of the spiritual goal. And that goal is Nirvana or freedom from all forms and identities.
I have read some Buddhist monks who emphasize on these two reasons given by Buddha. They don’t outright reject the concept of soul. But they merely opt to remain silent on the issue. That is definitely a wise choice rather than arguing about non existence of soul and supporting it by quoting Buddha’s words. Such an argument goes totally contrary to what Buddha preached.
I am not sure whether Buddhists would agree with me. But that is how I see it. And in my view, such a position is quite logical and beneficial. Are our so called ‘rationalists’ listening? 😉
A series discussing questions and answers on Yoga/Philosophy. © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2020-21
No comments:
Post a Comment