SOUL: BUDDHIST CONCEPTS

It's a difficult thing to imagine, but according to Buddhist ideology, the you that you think
of when you think of yourself -- the you reading this article right now -- doesn't really exist.
Unlike almost every other religious faith or spiritual practice, in Buddhism, there is no
concept of a "soul," eternal or otherwise. Instead, Buddhists believe that the soul, or "self"
is only a temporary composite of matter, sensations, perceptions, thought and
consciousness that dissipates and ceases to exist at death.
It is only slightly paradoxical to say that Buddhism has no concepts of the soul: Its most
fundamental doctrine teaches that no such thing exists and that the realization of this truth is
enlightenment. In The Buddha and His Teachings (Colombo, 1957), G. P. Malalasekera, a
Sinhala statesman and lay Buddhist, states this position forcefully:
In its denial of any real permanent Soul or Self, Buddhism stands alone. This teaching
presents the utmost difficulty to many people and often provokes even violent antagonism
towards the whole religion. Yet this doctrine of No-soul or Anatta, is the bedrock of
Buddhism and all the other teachings of the Buddha are intimately connected with it. The
Buddha is quite categorical in its exposition and would have no compromise. In a famous
passage He declares, "Whether Buddhas arise in this world or not, it always remains a fact
that the constituent parts of a being are lacking in a Soul," the Pali word used for "Soul"
being Atta. (pp. 3334)
Of course, one must be careful about what exactly is being denied here. The closest direct
equivalent to "soul" in Sanskrit or Pali is jva, from the verbal root jv, meaning "to live." In
Jainism, it denotes an individual, transmigrating, and eternal entity; and in the Vednta
school of Hinduism, the related term jvtman denotes the individual (but not universal)
form of the world soul, called tman or brahman. In one context, Buddhism uses this term
to deny the existence of the soul. The questions whether such a jva is identical to, or
1

different from, the body are two of a list of "unanswerable questions"unanswerable for
the clear epistemological reason that since no jva really exists, it cannot be identical to or
different from anything. But in other contexts the word jva and the closely related term
jvita are used uncontroversially to refer to animate life in contrast to inanimate objects or
dead beings. One of the "constituent parts of a being," as Malalasekara called them, is
termed jvitendriya ("life faculty"), which has both physical and mental forms; its presence
in a collection of such constituents is essential for that collection to be alive, or loosely for
that "being" to "exist." What is denied by Buddhism is that any such collection contains or
is equivalent to a permanent independent entity, whether individual or universal. The word
standardly used in Buddhism to refer to such a (nonexistent) entity is tman, or in Pali,
attan (nominatives tm and att respectively). In Indo-Aryan languages this (or related
forms) often functions simply as the ordinary reflexive pronoun, used in the masculine
singular for all numbers and genders. But since at least the time of the Upanis ads it has
also been used in religious and philosophical writing to refer to an eternal essence of
humanity. By contrast, Buddhism is referred to as antmavda ("the teaching of not-self, or
no-soul"). Other terms are used to refer to that whose ultimate reality Buddhism denies, but
they can all, like jva and tman, also be used uncontroversially in other contexts. Examples
are pudgala (puggala ) or their synonyms purusa (purisa ), usually translated "person," and
sattva (satta), "being.

Comparing Concepts in Other Religions

Most religions have some concept of a soul as a permanent, incorporeal entity that is
independent of the body, and may exist eternally. For Christians, Jews and Muslims, the
soul is largely synonymous with consciousness, and survives the demise of the body. In
contrast, Buddhists believe the self, or the soul, to be an illusion -- merely the product of an
impermanent mind, perception, sensation and ego. Because the mind, perception, emotion
and consciousness are constantly changing, the self is ephemeral and cannot be considered
an abiding entity.

Because Buddhism has its roots in Hinduism, the two religions share many of the same
ideas. In Hinduism, however, the atman is an eternal self that exists in a continuous cycle of
rebirth called samsara. The type of life one is born into -- animal or human, rich or poor -is a direct result of the karma accumulated over previous lives. While Buddhists also
believe in both karma and in reincarnation, they do not share the notion of the
transmigration of the soul. In Buddhism, there is no such thing as a permanent, individual
soul.

THE SOUL IN HINDUISM

In this vignette I'll focus mainly on the concept of "soul" as it is presented in Vedantic
philosophy, which essentially represents mainstream Hindu thought.
From their earliest history, Hindus believed that the soul survived the body and went to
either a place of pleasure or one of torment. Eventually the idea of reincarnation emerged,
in which the soul (after surviving death) was reborn into this world in a continuous cycle of
reincarnations until it had achieved "enlightenment."
For the soul is eternal and indestructible. It can exist in any living form, whether human
beings, animals, plants, or even in gods. Basically all souls in all different life forms are
alike. "Souls are souls." They do not differ in nature, regardless the life form they possess.
[John A. Sanford, SOUL JOURNEY, Crossroad, 1991, p. 64.]
Perceived as an individual entity, that which can be described as an embodied soul is called
the "jiva." The jiva is the manifestation of Atman-Brahman in Creation. And "egoconsciousness also partakes of the nature of "ahamkara"--[which refers to any
individualized form]--for it is an individualized expression or form of something that is in
its essence impersonal and supra-individual..." [Ibid, pp. 64-65.]
The Atman alone is the real, immortal Self. And it is the Atman that stands behind the jiva.
The Atman is Universal, and the jiva is an individualized particular. [Ibid, p. 65.]
Consequently, the soul as an "individual entity has only a tenuous existence" and of itself is
of little importance. Thus "an individual's personal identity in any particular reincarnation is
ephemeral and without substantial meaning." It is the Atman--the Impersonal Soul--which
is significant, because it, alone, is the underlying reality! [Ibid, p. 65.]
To quote Sri Aurobindo:
[The soul] "is not a definite psychic entity getting into a new case of flesh; there is a
metempsychosis, a resouling, a rebirth of a new psychic personality as well as a birth of a
new body. And behind this is the Person (Atman), the unchanging entity, the Master who
manipulates the complex material, the Artificer of this wondrous artifice." [Sri Aurobindo,
3

THE PROBLEM OF REBIRTH, Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department, 1952, p.

17.]

THE SOUL IN BUDDHISM

The idea of soul in Buddhism becomes complicated, because the Buddha...referred to such
as "no-soul." The soul (or the self) is not real. [Sanford, SOUL JOURNEY, p. 67.]
To quote the Buddhist scholar Walpola Rahula: "Buddhism stands unique in the history of
human thought in denying the existence of such a Soul, Self, or Atman. According to the
teaching of the Buddha, the idea of self is an imaginary, false belief that has no
corresponding reality, and it produces harmful thoughts of 'me' and 'mine'...It is the source
of all the troubles in the world..." [Walpola Rahula, WHAT THE BUDDHA TAUGHT,
Grove Press, 1959, p. 51.]
For the Buddhist there is no "individual enduring personality that is reincarnated, nor even
an individual soul in anything like the Western sense." [Sanford, SOUL JOURNEY, p. 68.]
Rather, there is a constant reformulation of "personality in new bodies." This Personality is
a Force at work, streaming through time and "never for a moment the same..." [Sri
Aurobindo, THE PROBLEM OF REBIRTH, Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication
Department, 1952, p. 14.]
As Sanford puts it:
"Individual souls are 'no-self', to be likened to the flames of fire that are never the same
from one watch of the night to another." [Sanford, SOUL JOURNEY, p. 69.]

THE SOUL IN ANCIENT GREECE

In Greek the word for soul is "psyche." In ancient times this word meant "breath." A sign of
life for the ancient Greek, soul dwelled literally within everything that was alive. Soul was
the vital force that "enlivened anything that showed the quality of life, whether it was
animal, vegetable, or human" [John A. Sanford, SOUL JOURNEY, Crossroad, 1991, p. 70.]
The concept of soul slowly evolved over time. In the Homeric Age there were beginning to
be different shades of meaning. Other Greek words, such as "thumos," "ker," and "menos"
began to represent the idea of soul. Indeed, with these new words, the connection of spirit
with soul began to form. These new words are "rendered as spirit, courage, heart, or wrath,
depending on the context." [Ibid, p. 71.]
During the Homeric Age cremation was practiced. It was thought that at death the soul
departed the body. Though the soul was supposedly to go to Hades, the ancient Greeks
thought some souls might linger around the body--"reluctant to depart or unable to make
the transition." Hence the reason for cremation. If there was no body, the soul would depart
and not be a threat to the living. [Ibid, p. 72.]
4

When the soul did go to Hades, it was neither rewarded nor punished for the previous life it
had led. There were only a few exceptions. Mainly, the soul lived on "gloomily as a mere
shade...of its former self." [Ibid, p. 72.]
A few centuries after the Homeric Age, there followed the Eleusinian mysteries. Though
much is still hidden about these mysteries, scholars have been able to determine that there
was a reenactment of the myth of Demeter and Kore and the eating of a kind of communion
meal (a ceremonial cake). The ceremony focused around bringing about a union with the
above goddesses, supposedly bestowing a kind of immortality on its adherents. This was a
more clear next step, moving from the soul being simply the life force of the body, from the
soul in death simply being a shade of itself, to the idea of an individual soul deriving a new
meaningful life and continued existence under the aegis of these goddesses of the
Underworld. [Ibid, p. 73.]
"Another important advance in the idea of the soul emerged...with Orphism...What was new
about the beliefs of the Orphics was the special relationship they believed could be
established between the soul and God." Orphism centered around the god Dionysus, "whom
they believed to have died and been reborn in somewhat the same manner as Christ." By
following the rituals and living a pure life Orphic devotees believed they could "unite their
souls with the immortal Dionysus." They worked to accomplish this through communion
meals, in which they ate the god and thus united themselves to him. By partaking of the
nature of Dionysus, their soul ultimately could become immortal. [Ibid, p. 74.]
Later the Ionic philosophers, such as Anaximander (611-549 b.c.e.) considered that God
was the universal element "from which everything in the created order was derived." Some
philosophers considered that air constituted this universal element; thus, the "human soul
was fashioned from air, being like a bit of the air enfolded within a human body."
Heraclitus (c. 500 b.c.e.) differed, in that he believed this universal element was fire. Hence
the human soul "was like a small portion of this fire." These early Greek philosophers
believed that upon death the soul returned to God. However, "for these philosophers...God
was impersonal, and the human soul, while it was immortal in the sense that it partook of
the essence of God, was not immortal in any personal sense." [Ibid, pp. 74-75.]
The big jump in Greek thought about the soul came with Pythagoras and continued through
with Socrates and Plato. Pythagoras believed that souls "reincarnated into other forms of
existence"; and, thus, presupposed a continuity of a soul's experience from "one incarnation
to another." [Ibid, p. 75.]
Plato believed that the soul was a "self-moving power" and that it existed before being born
into a particular body. So it naturally followed that soul could survive the death of the body,
too. For Plato the soul was the "carrier of individual personality." [Ibid, p. 75.]
Plato extended his theory, believing that "the whole world has a soul because the world
moves itself." And beyond this, God is "of the nature of soul because God is the Self-mover
par excellence." As the author and psychologist, John Sanford, said: "From this it is only a
small step to the inference that the human soul is essentially divine." [Ibid, p. 76.]
5

Sanford, especially, makes note that there is an extremely important aspect of Plato's
teaching which should be remembered--something called "the care of the soul." This means
"paying careful and diligent attention to the inner source of one's being." [Ibid, pp. 76-77.]
Further we have the concept of the soul as expressed by the ancient Stoics. Returning to the
universal element, regarded by some early Greek philosophers as fire, the Stoics likened
this concept of God as seed that having in itself the "reasons of all things and the causes of
what was, is, and shall be." This energy was the vital principle from which all the flora and
fauna springs The ancient Stoics considered that through any stage of development, it was
God (as a living force) who molded and dominated passive matter in terms of "progress."
The Stoics believed in soul--even for the animals, though not a rational soul. In rational
creatures, however, they considered the 'Pneuma" (fiery breath) to be manifested at a higher
degree of intensity as an "emanation from the world-soul." This Pneuma was a spark of the
celestial fire.
Essentially the Stoics believed that what God is for the world, the soul is for man. They
declared that the cosmos must be viewed as a single whole--with its "variety being referred
to varying stages of condensation in Pneuma." Therefore, for the ancient Stoics, the actual
nature of a human person is the universal on a small scale--a *microcosm.*
There is a parallel between the macrocosm and the microcosm. God, the Soul of the World,
fills and penetrates it. Similarly, the human soul pervades and breathes through all the
body-- informing and guiding it. In both the macrocosm and the microcosm, there is a
ruling part.
The ancient Stoics considered each human soul a "fragment of the universal divine force,
yet not completely sundered from the parent-stock." They were talking about *family.*
They declared that "We are thy offspring!"

Buddhism: Details about 'Atman Buddhism'

The need for Buddhists to understand Atman
Shantideva (A late Indian Buddhist philosopher and practitioner) informs us that in order to be able
to deny something, we first of all need to know what it is that we are denying.

Without contacting the entity that is imputed

You will not apprehend the absence of that entity
Bodhicaryavatara
The definition of Atman in Buddhism
Candrakirti contextualises Atman as follows:
Atman is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic
nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness.
Bodhisattvayogacarycatuh atakat ik256.1.7
In the 'Abhidharma pitaka', which deals with metaphysics, the prime doctrine which allows
pure Buddhist philosophy to successfully explain all phenomena is that all things happen
with cause. 'Atman' is a conceptual attachment to oneself that promotes a false belief that
one is intrinsic and without incident. This attachment further diverges one's route from the
path to enlightenment and hence 'Nirvana' as all forms of attachment do.
The ontological status of Atman in Buddhism
As Atman is identified as the cause of Samsara, it is not merely cognate with the various
concepts of Atman as found in Hindu philosophy (atman (Hinduism)), and indeed the
specific identification of what Atman is, is an essential philosophical concept for the
Buddhist meditator.
If Atman were not to exist at all, then we would all be naturally free from Samsara. What
this entails is that Atman is identified as existing as a concept - more specifically, as a
cognitive obscuration; moreover, it is this specific cognitive obscuration which is identified
as being the root cause of all suffering.
So, when Buddhists claim that there is no Atman, they are not really saying that it does not
exist, but that it exists solely as a cognitive obscuration - as an innate response to the world
around us; and this deeply enmeshed obscuration lies at the root of all misery.

Atman in Nikaya
Atman is a Sanskrit word (Pali: Attan), normally translated as 'soul' or 'Self'. In Buddhist
sutra, the Atman is the light (dipam), the only refuge . As contrasted to the 5-aggregates,
which are anatman (Pali: anatta), are not the Soul, are na me so atta (are not my Soul).
At no time or location in the Nikayas is the Atman rejected. What has Buddhism to say of
the Self? "That's not my Self" (na me so atta); this, and the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta)
predicated of the world and all "things" (sabbe dhamma anatta; Identical with the
Brahmanical "of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul", (anatma hi martyah, ). The
Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto. For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but what it
is not. There is never a doctrine of no-Soul, but a doctrine of what the Soul is not (form is
anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.).
In the Nikaya sutras, the Atman is the light (dipam), the only refuge . As contrasted to the
five aggregates, which are anatman (Pali: anatta), are not the Soul, are na me so atta (are
not my Soul).
What do the Nikayas have to say of the Self? "That's not my Self" (na me so atta); this, and
the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta) predicated of the world and all "things" (sabbe dhamma
anatta; Identical with the Brahmanical "of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul",
(anatma hi martyah, ). The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto. For anatta is not said
of the Self/Soul but what it is not. There is never a doctrine of no-Soul, but a doctrine of
what the Soul is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.).
Contextual doctrinal examples being: "The Soul (Attan) is Charioteer". Ananda, dwell
with the Soul (attan) as your Light, with the Soul as your refuge, with none other as
refuge. . The Soul (Attan) is ones True-Nature (Svabhava) "The Soul is the refuge that I
have gone unto; it is the Light, that very same sanctuary, that final end goal and
destiny. It is immeasurable, matchless, that which I really am, that very treasure; it is like
unto the breath-of-life, this Animator.
The abandonment of Atman in later Buddhist metaphysics
With the doctrine of anatta (Pli; Sanskrit: antman) Buddhism maintains that the concept
of tman is unnecessary and counterproductive as an explanatory device for analyzing
action, causality, karma, and reincarnation in a Buddhist context. Buddhists account for
these and other "self"-related phenomena by other means, such as prattya-samutpda, the
skandhas, and, for some schools, a pudgala. Thus it is not necessary for Buddhists to posit
an tman, and they further regard it as undesirable to do so, as they believe it provides the
psychological basis for attachment and aversion. Buddhism sees the apparent self (our
identification as souls) as a grasping after a self--i.e., inasmuch as we have a self, we have it
only through a deluded attempt to shore it up.
It should be noted that the critique of the individual self does not differentiate Buddhists
from Advaita Vedantists, as they, too, deconstruct the individual self. It is in pushing the
8

critique of the tman through to the level of metaphysical being in itself, i.e. to Brah man or
Paramatman, that it becomes that Buddhism distinguishes itself from Advaita on this point.
Positive teachings on the Atman in Mahayana Buddhism
Not all Buddhist scriptures, however, deny the reality of atman. Within the Mahayana
branch of Buddhism, there exists an important class of sutras (influential upon Ch'an and
Zen Buddhism), generally known as Tathagatagarbha sutras ("Buddha-Matrix" or "BuddhaEmbryo" sutras), a number of which affirm that, in contradistinction to the impermanent
"mundane self" of the five "skandhas"(the physical and mental components of the mutable
ego), there does exist an eternal True Self, which is in fact none other than the Buddha
himself in his ultimate "Nirvanic" nature. This True Self of the Buddha is indeed said to be
attained in the state of Mahaparinirvana. Furthermore, the essence of that Buddha the
Buddha-dhatu ("Buddha-nature", "Buddha principle"), or Dharmakaya, as it is termed is
present in all sentient beings and is described as "radiantly luminous". This Buddha-dhatu is
said in the Nirvana Sutra to be the uncreated, immutable and immortal essence
(svabhava) of all beings, which can never be harmed or destroyed. The most extensive
sutra promulgating this as an "ultimate teaching" (uttara-tantra) on the Buddhic essence of
all creatures (animals included) is the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra. There we read in
words attributed to the Buddha: ".. it is not the case that they are devoid of the Self. What is
this Self? Any phenomenon that is true , real , eternal , sovereign/autonomous and whose
foundation is unchanging is termed 'the Self' ." (translated from Dharmakshema's version of
the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra). This True Self so the Buddha of such scriptures
indicates must never be confused with the ordinary, ever-changing, worldly ego, which,
with all its emotional and moral taints and turmoil, conceals the True Self from view. Far
from being possessed of the negative attributes of the mundane ego, the Buddhic or
Nirvanic Self is proclaimed by the Buddha of the Nirvana Sutra to be characterised by
"Great Loving-Kindness, Great Compassion, Great Sympathetic Joy, and Great
Equanimity". There are numerous references to the reality of this transcendental yet
immanent Self in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which scripture the Buddha
declares to embody the uttarottara (absolutely supreme) meaning of all Mahayana
Buddhism.
Other Buddhist sutras and Tantras also speak affirmatively of the Self. For instance, the
Srimala Sutra insists: "When sentient beings have faith in the Tathagata and those sentient
beings conceive with permanence, pleasure, self, and purity, they do not go astray. Those
sentient beings have the right view. Why so? Because the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata has
the perfection of permanence, the perfection of pleasure, the perfection of self, the
perfection of purity. Whatever sentient beings see the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata that
way, see correctly." (The Lions Roar of Queen Srimala , Motilal, Delhi 1974, tr. by A. and
H. Wayman, p. 102). The early Buddhist Tantra, the Guhyasamaja Tantra, declares: "The
universal Self of entities sports by means of the illusory samadhi. It performs the deeds of a
Buddha while stationed at the traditional post" (i.e. while never moving). The same Tantra
also links the Self with radiant light (a common image): "The pure Self, adorned with all
adornments, shines with a light of blazing diamond .." (Yoga of the Guhyasamajatantra by
Alex Wayman, Motilal Delhi, 1977, pp. 18 and 28). And the All-Creating King Tantra (also
9

designated a sutra) has the primordial Buddha, Samantabhadra, state, ".. the root of all
things is nothing else but one Self I am the place in which all existing things abide."
(The Sovereign All-Creating Mind, tr. by E.K. Neumaier-Dargyay, pp. 158-159).
WHAT IS THE SOUL

The soul is often given a scientific and theological definition. In psychology the soul is
the concept of mind and self. It is synonymous with psyche and identity. This is a corporeal
understanding of a soul: a consciousness. Nevertheless, in Christian understanding, the soul
is something separate from the body. It is a sentient spirit. St. Augustine believes that the
soul was the rider of the horse (aka the body) and was the true person when not tainted
with the temptations of the flesh. Can we find this theological definition in scripture?
In the Old Testament, the word that is used is nephesh (breathing creature). The
translation of the word soul in English cant be made because it doesnt exist in Hebrew.
This is why the Jewish faith doesnt have the concept of the eternal soul and the Christian
concept of heaven and hell.
Genesis 2:7 God formed man from the dust and breathed life into him to become a living
soul Genesis 1:24 God said let the Earth bring forth the living creature after his kind,
cattle, and creeping things and beast of the Earth after his kind and it was so.Ezekiel 18:4
Behold all souls are mind; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine. The
soul that sinneth shall die.
All of these passages in the English read different, but in the original Aramaic, the word for
living creature and living soul are both naphesh. So in the Hebrew understanding, the soul
is the living essence of a human being. Not immortal by their understanding. So how does
Christianity make that paradigm shift in an immortal soul?
In the New Testament the dialogue changes. With Greek philosophical influences that
mirror those of St. Augustine, we now hear about the life after death experience for the
soul. The New Testament was written in Greek and the Greek word used was a variant of
psyche for soul. At the time, this was a synonym for naphesh, but as since taken on
different understanding throughout history.
John 3:15 Whosoever hate his brother is a murderer; and no murderer has eternal life
abiding in him.John 6:40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who
sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the
last day.
As you can see, the dialectic of the New Testament lends itself to a new conversation of the
promise of an afterlife. What was just a consciousness is now an identity that continues on
after death. The soul then is promised to be immortal in a heaven where life continues
forever.
THE BUDDHA AND THE SOUL
10

The Buddha was once directly asked whether there was a soul. He did not answer. When
asked by his monks why and his response was that to answer in the affirmative or negative
distracted from the practice of Right View.
The three core truths of Buddhism are annica (impermanence), anatta (no self) and dukkha
(distress or dissatisfaction). Anatta is often given the term no soul, which is a poor
translation. That is because the word anatta does not have a simple one or two-word
translation.
The Buddha says that there is no self, because the idea of a permanent identity does not
make sense. If we were permanent and unchanging then we would be no different today
than we were ten years ago, or when we were born. As we travel through time, we are
forever changing.
Heraclitus said, No man steps in the same river twice. That is because while the river is
identified as the experience in front of us, it is forever changing it shape, it material, its
reality. Our identities are like a river, continually changing. So if we are not who we were a
moment ago, then how can we say we are I or self? We cant.
And why do you call it consciousness? Because it cognizes, thus it is called
consciousness. What does it cognize? It cognizes what is sour, bitter, pungent, sweet,
alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, & unsalty. Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness.
SN 22.79
Nevertheless, the Buddha does acknowledge that there is an awareness of being. Something
that is separate from the thought machine, smelling, touching, seeing, hearing tasting entity
we associate with our identity. It is this core essence that continues on after death like a
candle that passes a flame to another candle. Not the same but continuity: much the same
way the river was a continuity metaphor during our life.
This could beby original definition of the Hebrew or Greek be given to the idea of
naphesh and psyche. It could be considered a soul by an academic standard. And since a
soul doesnt have to be eternal (the Bible does talk about the ability to extinguish the soul)
a soul living forever is determined by the quality of the soul. The passage of the soul to
another existence is also determined by the life lived in the world today. There are even
talks about heavens and hells that are possible (although to many these are metaphorical
heavens and hells).

11