Expert: Bodhicitta - 9/30/2004

Question
My question pertains to whether or not the Buddha himself had said the 'soul' is non-existent or if that was later conceived by another. And what exactly is 'reborn'? the karmic energy of the life form that dies? Thank you for whatever help you can give me.  

Answer
Hi Mikhel
Thanks for your question.

As you might have found there are many things written about
this question of 'soul' and the Buddhas doctrine by
academics and pandits through history. Many of these
writting are lively, contradictorym controversial and can
be somewhat confusing to someone trying to find a simple
statement of what the Buddha taught.

A conviently simple view would be that the Buddha taught
the doctrine of non-self, non-soul - anatman. The doctrine
that there is no permanent self, no soul, no-ego that exists
within Being. No permanent self  that abides or transmigrates from life to life.

This simple characterization of Buddhism
is that the doctrine of anatman is the mark of Buddhism and conviently differentiates it from earlier schools of Hinduism that seemingly  taught the existence of an Atman
a soul that reincarnates from life to life. Buddhism rebirth and Hinduism reincarnation.

The Buddhist doctrine of rebirth talks to .some sort of stream of mind, cause and effect, karma that moves between lives. Like a candle lighting another candle. Like a Billiard ball being hit by another Billiard ball and transfering its momentum.  

This doctrine is consistent with the Buddha's teaching  on the three marks of existence.
Impermanence, suffering, Non-self (anatman).  The meditator is invited to examine
their conditioned experience by examining the five parts or aggregates of experience (Skandkas) and to look for a permanent self. No such permanent self is found. The Meditator instead has an experience of non-self, an insight into the nature of emptiness.

The Buddha then clearly says that there  is no permanent self or soul within conditioned existence.

However elsewhere in the Buddhas doctrinehe  talks about Atman or self and soul. Interestingly many translators have refused to translate this as soul or self.
An interesting manifestation of the conditioning of the doctrine by the view of the translator!  So perhaps the Buddha is not saying there isn't an Atman nor is the Buddha saying there is an Atman. This sort of paradox is typical of the doctrine surrounding the meditation traditions. This should not be surprising as the Buddha
exhorts seekers of truth to come and find out the truth for themselves. Not to believe anything just that they are told something by the Buddha or anyone else. Truth is beyond the words, beyond the conceptsm beyond conditioned existence. The doctrine is an invitation to come and see , come and find out. To cling to the words is to misunderstand the very basis of the meditation tradition that the Buddha has left behind. There is some sort of arrow pointing to transcendence.

In the Pali canon the Buddha takes as given that the Self or Atman has the characteristics of permanence, freedom of suffering. He then says that these
Characteristics aren't to be found in conditioned existence. He doesn't say there
Is no such thing as Atman.

Hope this helps a little.

Bodhicitta.