Expert: Joe McSorley - 10/6/2005

Question
Why do you presume modern buddhism is so heretical in its attempt to deny/negate the Soul (atman/attan) since nowhere does Buddhism in Sutta deny the Soul, but what the soul IS NOT (form is not the soul [anatta], feelings are not the soul [anatta]........SN 3.196)...?

Since ABCDEF not-X (anatta, not the Soul) is not a denial of X, but a fallacy of composition, why is modern buddhism so heretically and wickedly trying to deny the Soul, since Gotama never did any such thing?

Since anatta is neti neti (not this, not that), and is always contextually an adjective... (form is anatman, feelings are anatman.....A is anatman,...B is anatman)...then why is Buddhism so perverse in its  NON-DOCTRINAL denial of the Soul?

www.attan.com

Answer
I have never made a comment about 'modern Buddhism being heretical ....' nor presumed as much, nor do I know what 'modern Buddhism' is so I can't defend it.  Awakening is transtemporal and historical so the idea of it being modern escapes me. You need to ask the modern Buddhist scholars you attack why they think this way. I think there is room for argument on either side. If the self is empty, then where is the soul? If there is a soul then the self is not empty, so there is contradiction. I think that if the historical Buddha believed in a soul it would have been stated in the 4 Noble Truths or Eightfold Path.  Gotama may not have denied a soul but neither did he affirm one. If a soul were in any way central to his teaching I think he would have said something about it. Saying everything a soul is not does not say what a soul may be. It may be that the idea of soul is competely alien to Western thought and could be thought of as Sunyatta, which would be arbitrary use of this word soul.  Of course then the Western traditions would say that this was not a soul at all by their definition.  It's impossible to argue this to any conclusion and for me personally a waste of time. What ever way you want to extrapolate that you can but it doesn't really matter, it's just an exercise with no end or proof either way.  If you wish to believe in a soul, that's fine, now how do you awaken to it, who is it that has a soul?  These issues are to be addressed by the individual in the present in Zen and not as some hypothetical argument.

Regardless, Zen does not pursue these arguments for they are unwinable. If you prove a soul how does that effect you, do you then actualize yourself as a soul? It's not belief in some ancient script that Zen is interested in or some intellectual argument but it is personal awakening that is most important. This is why Zen is that which is not relying on words or letters. If you need to defend the idea of a soul in Buddhism then have at it.  Hopefully this will lead you to some kind of awakening and relieve some of your anger and your harsh judgments of those who believe other than you.
 May you find resolution,

              Joe