SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET (10/16/90)
There was a posting recently which was looking for a discussion of the soul concept. Some people responded to it with explanations of the Bardo Thodrol (Tibetan Book of the Dead). I feel that the postings referring to the Bardo Thodrol were possibly very misleading, and unintentionally, very inaccurate in one respect. In these postings the word "soul" was used in explaining Buddhist teachings. This was probably simply a slip into Western terminology, however it could lead to a very gross misunderstanding of Buddist teaching. The term "soul" is not appropriate to any of the Buddhist traditions to the best of my knowledge. What follows is my understanding of Buddhism in this respect: The concept of an eternal soul, self, or spirit separate from the the psychophysical human organism, and having some existence apart from that organism is rejected by Buddhism. Such a belief is one of the classic Incorrect Views (miccha ditthi) and is called Eternalism in Buddhist teaching. The Buddha has said the following: "Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self- existing entities. Their heart still clings to Self. They are anxious about heaven and they seek the pleasure of Self in heaven. Thus they cannot see the bliss of righteousness and the immortality of truth." The Buddhist belief is that if an individual has made karma (kamma), that karma will produce the appropriate fruit/result (vipaka) sometime in the future. That 'sometime' may not be before the death of this particular psychophysical organism. It says in the Samyutta Nikaya, "According to the seed that's sown, so is the fruit reaped from it." And in another place: "I am the owner of my karma, heir to my karma, born of my karma, related to my karma, abide supported by my karma." Karma, I should point out, is the term for volitional action. All karma produces fruit/results that accords with itself. Man is what he does. The Visuddhi Magga (a very old commentary on Buddhist scripture and views) put it this way, "There is not doer but the deed, there is no experiencer but the experience. Constituent parts alone roll on. This is the true and correct view." If a person has made karma and not all of that karma has produced fruit in his lifetime, then at the moment of death consciousness (cuti citta) of this psychophysical organism the unexhausted karma conditions a relinking consciousness (patisandhi-vinnana). The relinking consciousness arises in a fertilized ovum in those circumstances appropriate for the ripening of that karma which has not yet borne fruit, produced its results. Consciousness is not an ongoing single entity it is many, many, moments - each one of them "the" consciousness at that instant. Consciousness is a process, not an entity. Everything, including the human consciousness, works on the triple principal of arising (uppada), remaining (thiti) and decay (bhanga). In the Digha Nikaya (Maha Tanha-Sankhaya Sutta) it is emphatic that consciousness (vinnana) does not travel from one existence to the next. It is as if the cuti citta were a dying flame that kindles the relinking consciousness in the material of a fertilized egg. Jack Carroll
courtney@inmet.inmet.com (10/18/90)
>From what little I have learned about Pali Buddhism this is an
excellent summary. Now - for the sake of discussion and maybe
where we can learn something (after all what is the reason for this
conferencing system!) - what exactly in the previous replies did you
find was not correct or of a wrong view.
I bring this up for the sake of discussion and not for anyone to be
right or wrong!
/regards
dc