In several discourses, the Buddha is noted for his silence or deliberate non-engagement with certain metaphysical questions—such as whether the universe is created or governed by an absolute deity, or whether an eternal soul exists that can attain liberation by entering an everlasting transcendent spiritual realm such as Brahma-loka or Vishnu-loka. What was the rationale behind this silence? Was his silence due to the fact he actually did not know if they existed? Did he deliberately withhold such teachings, regarding his audience as unprepared to accept these doctrines as truths? Or did he see these views as fundamentally mistaken from the ground up and therefore not worth discussing? Which of these explanations aligns best with canonical teachings and the broader Buddhist philosophical tradition?

Are beliefs in a permanent, unchanging soul / self considered detrimental to spiritual progress in Buddhism? If so, why? Please explain in detail.

While going across literature pertaining to buddhism, I came across the following write-up named '*Logical Criticism of Buddhist doctrines*' where the author has Criticized various aspects of Buddhist Philosophy. The question however is meant specifically towards the writer's criticism of the buddhist 'no-self' concept and defense of the soul theory. While Interested readers might look up chapter 17 (Page 303-326) , for brevity's sake I am summarizing the gist of their main points against the no-self concept and highlighting them for ease of reading. > **Just as one would not look for visual phenomena with one’s hearing > faculty or for auditory phenomena with one’s visual faculty, so it is > absurd to look for spiritual things (the soul, and its many acts of > consciousness, will and valuation) with one’s senses or by observing > mental phenomena**. Each kind of appearance has its appropriate organ(s) > of knowledge. For spiritual things, only intuition (or apperception) > is appropriate. > > > **To understand how the soul can exist apparently in midst of the body > and mind (i.e. of bodily and mental phenomena) and yet be invisible, > inaudible, etc. (i.e. non- phenomenal), just imagine a > three-dimensional space (see illustration below). Say that two > dimensions represent matter and mind and the third applies to spirit. > Obviously, the phenomena of mind will not be found in the matter > dimension, or vice versa**. Similarly, the soul cannot be found in the > dimensions of matter and/or mind, irrespective of how much you look > for it there. Why? Simply because its place is elsewhere – in the > spiritual dimension, which is perpendicular to the other two. > **The truth is that it is impossible to formulate a credible theory of > the human psyche without admitting the existence of a soul at its > center.** **Someone has to be suffering and wanting to escape from > suffering. A machine-like entity cannot suffer and cannot engage in > spiritual practices to overcome suffering. Spiritual practice means, > and can only mean, practice by a spiritual entity, i.e. a soul with > powers of cognition, volition and valuation**. These powers cannot be > equated electrical signals in the brain, or to events in the skandhas. > They are sui generis, very miraculous and mysterious things, not > reducible to mechanical processes. Cognition without consciousness by > a subject (a cognizing entity) is a contradiction in terms; volition > without a freely willing agent (an actor or doer) is a contradiction > in terms; valuation without someone at risk (who stands to gain or > lose something) is a contradiction in terms. This is not mere grammar; > it is logic. > > As already mentioned, **a soul is not an essence, but a core > (spiritual) entity. It therefore cannot be viewed as one of the five > skandhas, nor as the sum of those skandhas, as the Buddhists rightly > insist. It can, however, contrary to Buddhist dogma, be viewed as one > of the parts of the complete person, namely the spiritual part; but > more precisely, it should be viewed as the core entity, i.e. as the > specific part that exclusively gives the whole a personality, or > selfhood.** This is especially true if we start wondering where our soul > came from when we were born, whether it continues to exist after we > die, where it goes if it does endure, whether it is perishable, and so > forth. How would a buddhist respond to this critique of the no-self theory?

The ultimate teaching of Buddhism is that of anatta or that there is no permanent soul or self as is there no creator Godhead. However across the vast tapestry of spiritual traditions, there are many which not only actively assert the God/soul beliefs but also have many individuals who say they have attained realizations of soul or God. While the nature of the experiences many vary radically the common thread in all of them is the belief in the soul. An everlasting soul at that. Listing some examples for instance - - The spiritual experiences of an Advaita vedantist, where the practictioner realizes oneself as spirit/consciousness and one with all the cosmos/existence - The spiritual experiences of a Vaishnava involving realizing oneself as a soul, and a part and parcel of a personal God , Vishnu/Krishna. - The spiritual experiences of a Shaivite involving realising oneself as a soul/spirit and identical with the personal God Shiva. Now my question is If an individual attains such realizations/experiences which convince them that they are an eternal soul or are in some way linked/related to some personal or impersonal God, How will such an experience be viewed under the lens of buddhism? Will buddhism view such Soul/God experiences as mental confabulations or accept them having some degree of truth to them?

I am looking for some buddhist works that specifically criticize or refute the Vedantic concept of Atman. Any help would be appreciated.

I read the following on the internet: > Yes. The Buddha repeatedly states his awareness to be separate from > the consciousness aggregate. > Lord, freed (nissaṭo), dissociated (visaṁyutto) & released (vippamutto) from how many things does the > Tathāgata dwell with unrestricted (vimariyādīkatena) awareness (cetasā)? > > Freed, dissociated & released from ten things, Vāhuna, the Tathāgata > dwells with unrestricted awareness. Which ten? Freed, dissociated, & > released from form, the Tathāgata dwells with unrestricted awareness. > Freed, dissociated, & released from feeling… Freed, dissociated, & > released from perception… Freed, dissociated, & released from > fabrications… **Freed, dissociated, & released from consciousness**… > Freed, dissociated, & released from birth… Freed, dissociated, & > released from aging… Freed, dissociated, & released from death… Freed, > dissociated, & released from stress… Freed, dissociated, & released > from defilement, the Tathāgata dwells with unrestricted awareness. > > Just as a red, blue, or white lotus born in the water and growing in > the water, rises up above the water and stands with no water adhering > to it, in the same way the Tathāgata — freed, dissociated, & released > from these ten things—dwells with unrestricted awareness. > > [AN 10.81 Thanissaro translation](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN10_81.html) Does a Buddha really have an "awareness" separate from the five aggregates? Are there any suttas that explicitly say a Buddha is with or without the five aggregates? Are there any suttas offering insight into the meanings of the words 'nissaṭo', 'visaṁyutto'. 'vippamutto' and 'vimariyādīkatena'?

If Buddhists don't believe that we have a soul then why do some believe in ghosts or spirits? this seems contradictory.

A friend wanted to know the Buddhist position on rebirth/reincarnation since we don’t believe in a permanent soul. Specifically, what is it that pass from this life to the next? “Karma” was my reply then. There was a look of disappointment; the answer was obviously unsatisfying. I have seen this question asked in this forum in some form or another; here (1) , here (2) , here (3) , here (4) , here (5) , here (6) and there (7) . Looking at the number of times this topic appears, I am not trying to get a definitive answer. Instead, how would you answer this question so that it can enlighten/delight/pacify someone from a non-Buddhist tradition (with some inclinations towards an eternal soul). Note that the target audience do not have a deep understanding in Buddhist concepts e.g. the 5 clinging aggregates. Hopefully, the next time another non-Buddhist friend ask a similar question, I won't turn them off but to **entice** them to investigate further. (Interestingly, looking at the tag info on rebirth in this forum, it says: “The consciousness in the new person is neither identical nor entirely different from that in the deceased but the two form a causal continuum or stream”, I wonder who wrote this.)

Are hungry ghosts in Buddhism believed to be "alive" or at least "undead" since hungry ghost is one of the options of rebirth?

**Buddhism** 1. *Anatta* (no-self doctrine) 2. Reincarnation (death-rebirth cycle in *samsara*) How can something that *doesn't exist* reincarnate?

As per Buddhism, what are elements of soul, or what is soul made of? (If we split body and soul to separate them, then what are elements of soul?)

As I underestand, buddhists beliefe there is no-self, means no permanent soul in creatures like us humans. Would a buddhist say, we all are part of one absolute consciousness? If so, is the degree of enlightenment someone has equivalent to the area of the absolute consciousness someone experiences? In other words: A buddha is 100% enlightend and thus he is equal to absolute consciousness? Sorry this sounds way to mathemetical, but I'm relatively new to buddhism, so I don't know the right words. Hope you can help me.

> According to the Brahmajala Sutta, Ajita propounded Ucchedavada (the > Doctrine of Annihilation after death) and Tam-Jivam-tam-sariram-vada > (the doctrine of identity of the soul and body), which denied the > separate existence of an eternal soul. Annihilationism is usually thought of as one extreme, which assumes an atman. But if atman is permanent, I don't easily see the error here. 1. Why is it a self view? 2. Can you support Ucchedavada as well as anatman? 3. If not why not? if it's because Ucchedavada explicitly posits a self, what happens when you remove that from the teaching, and is it still Ucchedavada?

> A soul from a previous generation is reincarnated in a later > generation into a specific set of circumstances which are tailored to > engineer a rectification of a previous sin Are there instances in Buddhist scripture or history where there is a confirmation of the above statement as being typical, or being the purpose, of reincarnation? Don't know if sin prefigures in Buddhist thought or has connections to reincarnation, but the source of the quote above is drawn from Judaism and Kabbalah's conceptualization of reincarnation, which they do relate to sin.

Do Buddhist teachings or scripture say anywhere whether or not a reincarnated soul has memory of their past lives? Referenced passages are encouraged.

If reincarnation were true, in that a soul takes on different human bodies across several different lives during that soul's existence, have philosophers, theologists, scholars or any scriptures ever indicated whether one of those lives is the true identity of that soul? Or is it implicitly always assumed that the first life or incarnation of that soul is its true identity?

Does the doctrine of no soul is means that there is nothing permanent to continue? So is the teaching of reincarnation, rebirth misleading as there is a notion there is a continuity after death? Also death and birth is visible at the physical level, [but the rebirth process is not. What is the implication on this in the doctrine?]

Almost every Buddhist I've met sincerely believes in non-existence of self or soul. Especially, the vipassana practitioners say that *scanning* the body and finding no atman or *self* in it is proof that self doesn't exist. But what about the practitioner himself who is scanning or performing the vipassana? Doesn't that imply that he himself is the soul? Also, I found today that [Buddha](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions) himself stayed unanswered on this matter: > The Buddha states that it is unwise to be attached to both views of having and perceiving a self and views about not having a self. So, how can you argue that soul doesn't exist when Buddha himself didn't deny it (or accept it either)? Are there any branches of Buddhism that *believes* in existence of soul?

I've heard a lot of questions like, "who is there to enlighten if there is no self?" Is that kind of question based on ignorance on the difference between Soul and Self? Or does Buddhism deny the existence of both Soul and Self? I think I understand Buddhists saying that 'Soul' doesn't exist. I understand the word *atman* meaning Soul in Vedic languages: and it is different from the concept of Self. While nobody can deny the fact that a person exists, the existence of a soul is not proven. Just curious about the concept of soul and self in Buddhism.

And in particular, is it eternal, unchanging and like any other formulation for a soul that we might have seen, in say Christianity or Hinduism? This particular idea, that ālaya-vijñāna is like a permanent self, is mentioned in "Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist", by Stephen Bachelor.