Buddhism teaches that there is no soul because the concept of soul is not compatible with its teachings. Buddhism teaches impermanence yet soul is permanent. Buddhism teaches that everything is subject to death, yet the soul or Atman of traditional Hinduism is immortal. Buddhism does not allow the existence of an eternal, unchanging, universal soul that remains essentially the same throughout the course of many reincarnations. Even to wonder about the soul serves no purpose in Buddhism, for the goal of Nirvana is beyond soul.
Discussion of the soul begins with the discussion of its nature. Yet Buddhism believes it is useless to speculate on the nature of the soul because no such speculation will ever lead to a single indisputable conclusion, and such speculation is irrelevant to the goal of Buddhism. In the Dīgha Nikāya, the Buddha says “it is possible to make four propositions concerning the nature of the soul” (Embree, Sources of Indian Tradition, 104). One can speculate whether the soul is finite or infinite, with or without form. Yet the Buddha then says, “there are as many ways of not making propositions concerning the soul, and those with insight do not make them” (Embree 104). It is better to say nothing at all about the nature of the soul, because nothing absolutely certain can be said about it. Every statement about the soul’s nature is equally impossible to prove. Therefore all such statements are equally uncertain. Furthermore, in the same text the Buddha says that each of these propositions about the soul is “not acceptable” (Embree 104).
Even if one could say something definite about the soul, speculation on its nature would still be useless because in Buddhism the soul itself is not relevant to Nirvana. The soul (if it exists and whatever its nature) is a part of life and death, of Samsara, of the world. It is that which links one life to the next, which endures multiple deaths and rebirths. Yet when one attains to Nirvana, there are no more incarnations and the soul ceases to be of use. Thus Buddha says:
[The monk who has attained to Nirvana]…knows that rebirth is at an end, that his goal is reached, that he has accomplished what he set out to do, and that after this present world there is no other for him (Embree 104).
This statement implies that the defining characteristic of a “soul” is that it lives on after the death of the body. However, since the goal of Buddhism is to be free of life and death, all questions concerning such a soul are irrelevant.
Another defining characteristic of “soul” is its permanence and immortality. Yet Buddhism teaches that nothing is permanent or immortal, that all life is subject to death. Therefore the traditional notion of Atman in Hinduism is contrary to Buddhist thought. The Atman’s unchanging, eternal nature is at odds with Buddhism’s perception of the universe as ever changing. The world often appears to remain the same but the Buddhist knows it to be always in flux. This idea appears in Hesse’s Siddhartha, when the hero, contemplating the river, sees that it is always the same river, yet the water in it is never the same water.
It is similar with human lives. As demonstrated in the Milindapañha, when a human being reincarnates, “he neither remains the same nor becomes another” (Embree 107). This paradox is likened to the grown man who was once a child. The man is quite different in both appearance and behavior from the child, yet somehow the two are the same person. Likewise, the flame of a lamp is never the same flame, and yet “the same lamp gives light all through the night” (Embree 107). Like the lamp and the river, the world is ever changing yet somehow always the same. When these metaphors are applied to the question of reincarnation and transmigration, the implication is that there is a flow of energy from one body to the next but nothing so permanent as to be called a soul.
This brings us to the inevitable question that results from Buddhism’s assertion that “nothing transmigrates, and yet there is rebirth” (Embree 108): how can there be rebirth if no soul transmigrates? The only answer can be that the soul is not reborn, but something else is. The Milindapañha tries to answer the question of what is reborn. The text shows that rebirth is like the passage of a candle flame from one candle to another. This simile suggests that it is energy rather than personality that travels from one body to the next. This energy is all that is left after the death of one human being, and it ignites into life another human being.
According to Narada Thera’s Buddhism in a Nutshell,[1] this energy is kamma or karma, and it is karma alone that passes from one being to another. “When life ceases the Kammic energy re-materializes itself in another form” (53). When one is free from karma, good or bad, one is therefore free from the cycle death and rebirth. This state is Nirvana, the goal of Buddhism.
In summary, according to the Buddha, there is no acceptable definition or description of what the soul actually is. There is debate and constant questioning over the issue. Also, since the nature of the soul has no bearing on the goal of Buddhism, the question of the soul is ultimately irrelevant to the Buddhist. The idea of soul is eternal, yet for the Buddhist all is impermanent. The Buddhist doctrine of No Soul affirms the Hindu doctrine of reincarnation, but denies that there is any soul that transmigrates from one body to another. Yet to say there is rebirth with no soul seems at first a contradiction. For how could one be reborn if the soul does not transmigrate? The Buddhist would answer that one’s karmas are all that are reborn, and that the personality is always changing
No comments:
Post a Comment