Concept of Soul / Self in the Theistic Religions by Guest Blogger Ng Yeow Foo

Singapore Dharma-buddy, Ng Yeow Foo (a.k.a. Tiger), has contributed the following excellent article. Thank you so much Tiger!

Concept of Soul / Self in the Theistic Religions: Analysis of the Brahmajāla Sutta

Theism or theistic religion is simply defined as a system of belief in the existence of at least one god. As such, there are many flavours of theism, differentiated by the number of god(s) and the nature of god(s) in the respective belief systems: monotheism, the doctrine or belief in a single creator God (e.g., Judaism, Christianity and Islam); polytheism, the belief in more than one god (e.g., the ancient Greek belief system); pantheism, the belief that everything is God, or the whole universe is regarded as manifestation of God (e.g., Vedas of Brahmanism). The conception of God must somehow be treated as analogous or identical with the idea of soul or self. Without soul theory as the ground, be it material or immaterial, it is rather difficult to establish theistic spirituality and the existence of supreme God.

It must be noted that the Buddha was mainly criticizing the soul theories of the Upaniṣadic tradition which are extremely similar to the traditional or contemporary Christian soul theories (Gunapala, 1987; p. 1). This is evidenced in the second half of the Brahmajāla Sutta, where the Buddha lists out sixty-two types of wrong views (micchā diṭṭhi) held by some ascetics and Brahmins at that time, of whom are having fixated ideas about the past or future. As such, the Buddha has intelligently dealt with almost all philosophical or religious thoughts; some of those are still surviving up to the present time, in which most of them center around the idea of SOUL / SELF.

What draws our attention here are the Eternalists, Eternalists and partly Non-Eternalists (partial-eternalists), and Chance-Originationists views which are of speculators about the past, having fixed views about the past, and who put forward various speculative theories about the past. The holder of these views based solely on their memories of last existences obtained upon achieving a certain degree of mental concentration. The eternalists, for example, would proclaim the eternity of self and the world in four ways simply because they fall short of the ability to recall the more distant pasts, perceive this world and the “imaginary” self as permanent and eternal. As for the partial-eternalism, the Sutta rightly describes the origin of the God-as-the-Creator idea as in all theistic religions. The so-called the Creator-God concept is indeed a mistake made by both the “Maha-Brahmā who has lost his memories about his existence in the previous world” and by men’s misunderstanding of this cosmological story (as in the Biblical story), and the subsequent misconstruction via yogic experience (Bodhi, 1978; p. 19-23). Similarly, those who are of chance-originationists view, due to the inability of recalling beyond their last existence, think that the self and the world arise by chance since they speculate that they don’t exist before that. This is the doctrine of fortuitous origination of self and the world.

The Buddha points out that these speculative views are always rooted on the past or future. However, the majority of the metaphysical views (44 types) are nested on the post-mortem future, our destiny after death. The first three sets (of the 44 types) are still dealing with eternalism, but they tend to lean towards future and all are of various types of post-mortem consciousness or self’s survival after death. Eternalist is at one end, while annihilationist is at the other end embracing the belief that the destruction of “being” is the end of the individual experience. There are seven ways of proclaiming annihilationism described in the Sutta, only the first one which identifies self with physical body, is purely materialistic. The other six are the more subtle way of defining annihilationism, where the self now is identified with inner principles that reside in the divine world, the fine material realm and the four immaterial planes. Only with the destruction of this self it is said that the final annihilation takes place. Would it not sound like some sort of annihilation in the divinity sense, in other words the “annihilation of the soul in God” as the ultimate destiny of a spiritually perfected sainthood? Finally, the proclaimers of the doctrine of Nibbāna Here and Now seem to commit the fundamental error of identifying concept of permanent self to Nibbānic experience, which is also unrightfully misinterpreted (Bodhi, 1978; p. 27-31).

The Sutta concludes with the Buddha attributing the ground of all the sixty two views to contact of the six sense-bases. It seems that the problem appears upon repeated contact, by which it conditions feelings, and feelings condition craving, craving conditions clinging, and so on as in the paṭicca-samuppāda formula. The interesting point I would like to point out here is the antidote that the Buddha has prescribed: “…when monk understands as they really are the arising and passing away of the six bases of contact, their attraction and peril, and the deliverance from them, he knows that which goes beyond all these views.” Those views, which largely contribute to the emergence of some major religions in the present time are indeed “fused” by the failure to realise the impermanence of six sense-bases that condition contact. Once this is understood, the idea of a metaphysical soul/self will become meaningless.

Gunapala claims that the Buddha maintains that the belief-in-a-soul theory which is so prominent in some ideological systems can be traced to an emotional bias. The so-called ideas about “I” and “self” are considered as “thoughts haunted by craving concerning the inner self”. Additionally, the desire and attachment for the consciousness and its types give rise to dogmas and emotional biases (Gunapala, 1987; p. 9). And this is when one would end up grasping after systems, craving for “identity” which oftentimes creates a wall separating oneself from others who simply hold the different belief systems. Of course, the root of all these is the contact through six sense-bases that conditions the forming of all metaphysical views.

This Sutta is also known as “all-embracing net of views”. Indeed the Buddha has beautifully pointed out the full spectrum of “personal views” (and their problems) during his time which is still applicable until today, and it can be extended to non-religious belief systems as well. It must be noted however that this article is not meant to put down on other religions or belief systems. In my opinion, the Buddha is offering an alternative gateway to the highest attainment of morality and knowledge without utilising the theory of soul/self. It is the attachment to the self idea which blinds the people from seeing things as they truly are, and hence the emergence of violence and terrorism that keep haunting the world today.

Bibliography:
Bodhi, Bhikkhu, trans. The Discourse on the All-Embracing Net of Views: The Brahmajāla Sutta and Its Commentaries. Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society, 1978.

Walshe, Maurice, trans. The Long Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Dīgha Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995. (Originally published under the title, Thus Have I Heard, 1987.)

Gunalapala, Dharmasiri. A Buddhist Critique of the Christian Concept of God. Singapore: The Buddhist Research Society, 2^nd Ed, 1987.