From: wong@rkna50.riken.go.jp (Wong Weng Fai)
Subject: Re: No Soul
Organization: ----
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:38:04 GMT

Hi,

	I would like to take my shot at the topic of "soul". But before
that I have to say that I fully agree with the statement that "Buddhism
(as it exist today) is not (only) the teaching of Sakyamuni." That is
why I've always come out against "holy book" postings. With respect to
the problem of "soul", indeed famous people like Mrs. Rhys-Davis 
(she and her husband were the first few person who spared no effort in
translating Pali texts to English) who subscribe to the view that anatta
was NOT in the original teachings of Sakyamuni Buddha. 

	Having said that, I would like to approach the problem in two
ways. First, I will try to show the inconsistencies in the "soul" theory
and then give (my understanding of) what (conservative) Buddhism teaches.
I will leave the related but equally important questions of Nibbana and
gods till later (well, maybe never ;-).

	We should begin with what we mean by a "soul". Intuitively, I
would define a "soul" (no authority here but ...) as an entity that :

	1. Inhabit the body most of the time;
	2. Is separate from the physical body;
	3. Is separate from the senses;
	4. Controls the body most of the time;
	5. Is permanent or at least remains immutable after death;
	6. Is responsible for the behavior of the individual most of the
	   time;

The motivation for the theory of a soul seems to be that there is a 
seemingly unsurmountable gap between the physical body (including the
senses) and the individual as we know it. Another motivation is the
need for something for religion (god) to work on (i.e. reward or punish)
after death. As for the first motivation, since even now it is an unknown, 
there is little that can be said about it except that "soul" is just one of 
the POSSIBLE explanations. As for the latter, while there is ample reason
why human society needs a system of reward/punishment (otherwise we'll wipe
ourselves out REALLY fast ;-), there is no reason why this should extend after
death. Cynics have even suggested that this is a manifestation of our
greedy (we want eternal existence), sadistic (we want to whip others) and 
masochistic (we want to be whipped) tendencies hidden in religion's cloak.

	I think someone has countered the "permanence" feature (5) quite well.
In fact, it goes counter to the motivation of reward/punishment - if its
features are already permanent, what can anyone (including god) do about it 
and what's the point ? If its different, how can we identify soul A which
exhibits features X and soul B which exhibits features Y ? If the argument is
that there is a continuity, then we must ask the question - "where is the
continuity to be found ?" For example, if soul A is "good" and then turn "bad",
isn't this two souls ? Where is the continuity to be found since souls are
but features (they certainly don't possess anything physical like a body or a
face) ? By the way, I also think that the theory of "freewill" is silly and
self-contradicting - "you are free to choose from any of only ONE choice".
I also don't believe in pre-destination ;-)

	Features (4) and (6) - control leads to infinite regress. If our body 
is controlled by a soul, what then controls the soul ?  (ad infinium) If the 
soul is responsible for the behavior of the individual, what then is responsible
for the behavior of the soul ? (ad infinium)

	Features (1), (2) and (3) - separateness is self-contradictory. To 
begin with, it is not clear what is it apart from the physically functioning
body that one can point to as a "soul". Suppose you can distinguish a set of
characteristics which forms the soul. Take a particular characteristic, X say,
and ask "what makes it part of the soul and not the body ?", "without this X,
is the soul still a soul ?" The point of the argument is that while all the
functionalities of the body can be viewed as separate (eg. sight is different
from sound), no one characteristic can stand on its own (its nonsense to talk
about "pure" sight "on its own"). They are all part of this vaguely defined 
microcosm called "me". "Vaguely" because you can do away with certain features 
and yet still consider "me" a being (eg. any of the five senses) but you can't 
do away with "too much" of it (eg. all five senses). Therefore the notion of 
an empty shell inhibited by a permanent soul is a naive one which crumbles 
under such strict scrutiny.

	Against this background, Buddhism (as I understands it) proposes the
"process theory". If every part of my body, my thoughts, emotions and feelings
are changing every single second, which is it that makes up me ? Buddhism
answers that its like a movie show - we get the illusion of a continuation
(a storyline say) when in fact it is make up of sequences of disjointed
frames. "Aha !", the critic may exclaim, "it is this sequence which is 'me'".
"That fine if you define it so", says Buddhism, "but remember the two caveats".
Firstly, the situation is a lot more complex than a movie - we exist in a
co-dependent, forever changing universe. In other words, you can't really put
your finger down onto this and that "frame" (i.e. the "borders" of the "frames",
if they exist at all are very vague) and claim it to be part of you. One
"frame" includes other "frames" while being part of others too - i.e. the
infamous Indra's net analogy. The second caveat follows from the first - that
there is nothing "in" the "frame" which is distinctly "me", i.e. the infamous
term emptiness. 

	Karma enters the picture nicely as the mutual dependence and influence
of the "frames" have on one another. On a moral front (I HAD to point this
out ;-) karma simply means if you are a nice guy, people will like you, if
you're an ass, people will kick you - isn't this perfectly natural given
human tendencies ? Rebirth ... not too sure ;-)

	Of course, even in the scriptures, the Buddha use terms like "you" or
"me". But these are to be understood on a relative sense. Its like talking
about a piece of wonderful music by which we mean a sequence of repeatable sonic
vibrations. The point of Anatta is twofold - first in pointing out the true
nature of things, i.e. its impermanent, movie-like nature and second is that
in practice it will remove the selfish clinging to, and the other unhealthy
motivations associated with, this illusion. Whether one considers it wonderful, 
optimistic, pessimitic, nihilistic, sadistic or what not is purely a matter of 
personal taste. 

with Metta,

W.F. Wong.

Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern