A Question on Anatman

Namely, if the existence of intelligent ghosts should be satisfactorily proved, then couldn't one say that said ghosts are disembodied souls--and if they are, doesn't that blow anatman (soullessness) completely out of the water?

Thoughts?

Namely, if the existence of intelligent ghosts should be satisfactorily proved, then couldn't one say that said ghosts are disembodied souls--and if they are, doesn't that blow anatman (soullessness) completely out of the water?

Thoughts?

Namely, if the existence of intelligent ghosts should be satisfactorily proved, then couldn't one say that said ghosts are disembodied souls--and if they are, doesn't that blow anatman (soullessness) completely out of the water?

Thoughts?

Here is a ghost story. My parents and my aunt and uncle were driving on an isolated highway some fifty or sixty years ago. It was at night. As they were driving through the dark night out in the middle of the desert, they seen something up ahead. As they slowed down, they looked and saw what seemed to be a lady in a white dress. They stopped the car, and got out but, the lady was gone. They walked a little further up the road. They discovered that up ahead, the road was washed out. They shared that story with me when I was a kid. They all confirmed that they saw a lady in a white dress. Now, I don't necessarily believe in ghosts. however, they are not the sort to lie or make things up. So, ya never know.

Anyway, anatman as I understand it is that there is no separate, immutable part of human existence that dictates and transcends human intelligence: no atman, or as the word is commonly translated, soul or self; not only that, but this delusion is a cardinal sin that leads into all other sins, which leads, of course, into duhkha (or suffering), and that our minds are just as much streams of effervescent, ever-changing energy as our bodies.anatman.

These stories fascinate me, however i have yet to experience any myself, (I wish), in order for me to be utterly convinced i need evidence not just the word of others, i do not doubt that what they believe happened but if they do exist in order for me to beleive i need to see it myself.

Well, that's just plain confused. You are mixing up three different ideas . . . anatman, acquired self, and nirvana.

The Buddha did not say (no matter what future "Buddhists" said) that there is no immutable part of human existence, just the opposite in fact. He said, "There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension nor motion. . . there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising. . . . There is, monks, an unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded . . . [and] because [that exists] . . . an escape can be shown for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded."

So there definitely is an unchanging aspect to existence (according to the Buddha) BUT, it isn't what we call the "self." What we call the self is what you describe as "streams of effervescent, ever-changing energy," and, in fact, that we think that "self" is the permanent, true, constant of our being is the very source of the particular delusion the Buddha is addressing.

More evidence that we possess an unchanging aspect of existence is seen in how the "plane" the Buddha describes (nirvana) is reached . . . by turning inward, through the breath, to attain oneness with it. If the immutable plane were not within us, why would the Buddha have taught his students to look within for it?

So you are confusing the ever-changing self concept of our mind with the deeper unchanging part of us which some have called "soul" (precisely because it doesn't change). And the idea of anatman is the practice or perspective of turning away from believing (i.e., denying) that the changing self is the permanent thing. Anatman is not the teaching (by the Buddha anyway) that we are soulless!

Therefore, in emptiness, there is neither form, nor feeling, nor perception, nor mental formations, or consciousness; there is no eye, or ear, or nose, or tongue, or body, or mind; no form, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no object of mind; no realms of elements (from eyes to mind-consciousness); no interdependent origins and no extinction of them (from ignorance to old age and death); no suffering, no origination of suffering, no extinction of suffering, no path; no understanding, no attainment.

Now you are simply confusing yourself!

I was thinking more in terms of echoes, and a Tibetan sort of energy streams. Just as hearing an echo doesn't mean there's somebody shouting back at you, so too an echo of life doesn't require that there's an eternal, immutable echo-er, only that there was once an echo-er of some sort to make the echo in the first place. Thus what I said is entirely in keeping with anatman.

. . . [if intelligent ghosts exist] doesn't that blow anatman (soullessness) completely out of the water?

And also recall Buddhism rails against precisely those sorts of distinctions conceptualization creates, thus there is no real distinction between anatman, dependent origination, and nirvana. Geez.

And, since you're so willingly confused, let me throw in a random quote from a Buddhist holy text just to confuse you further:

Therefore, in emptiness, there is neither form, nor feeling, nor perception, nor mental formations, or consciousness; there is no eye, or ear, or nose, or tongue, or body, or mind; no form, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no object of mind; no realms of elements (from eyes to mind-consciousness); no interdependent origins and no extinction of them (from ignorance to old age and death); no suffering, no origination of suffering, no extinction of suffering, no path; no understanding, no attainment.

Here too what is said not to be an idea of the sun, and yet is described, is precisely what I call an idea.

To be empty is to be empty of something...When Avalokita says that the five skandhas are equally empty, to help him be precise, we must ask him, "Mr. Avalokita, empty of what?"
......
And this is what he [says]: "They are empty of a separate self." That means none of these five [skandhas] can exist by itself alone. Each of the five [skandhas] has to be made by the other four. They have to co-exist; they have to inter-be with all the others.

Your concern about emptiness, however, is well noted. Indeed, I would not have posted the text without what I would consider a sufficient and adequate comprehension. Thich Nhat Hanh's The Heart of Understanding, I believe, gives a useful, if simple, account of the idea.

Les, since I am taking my views on the matter directly from the Heart Sutra, I can't see how I'm misrepresenting the Buddha's teachings.

Granted, there has been a great drift between the original teachings and further cogent interpretations--but can't the same thing be said for Christianity?

To try to live life only by the decrees of just the most ancient veins of thought in a religion, as do all practitioners of orthodoxies*--Theravadas, Orthodox Jews, Protestants, fundamental Muslims--is inherently fallacious, not least because the original vein of thought, whether Mosaic, Messianic, Koranic, or Pali, grew out of a given place and time in history, and it is impossible to perfectly re-recover that necessary moment, and the commentary tradition reflects the adaptation of a successful faith as times in history change!