as I am away from home, I am quite short of useful references, this
is what I have got from the Web.
#1. Britannica: Soul
Immaterial aspect or essence of a person, conjoined with the body
during life and separable at death. The concept of a soul is found in
nearly all cultures and religions, though the interpretations of its
nature vary considerably. The ancient Egyptians conceived of a dual
soul, one surviving death but remaining near the body, while the
other proceeded to the realm of the dead. The early Hebrews did not
consider the soul as distinct from the body, but later Jewish writers
perceived the two as separate. Christian theology adopted the Greek
concept of an immortal soul, adding the notion that God created the
soul and infused it into the body at conception. In Hinduism, each
soul, or atman, was created at the beginning of time and imprisoned
in an earthly body; at death, the soul passes to a new body according
to the laws of karma. Buddhism negates the idea of a soul, asserting
that any sense of an individual self is illusory.
:-) What I understand is that the concept of an unchanging permanent
soul was already in existence during Buddha's time. It is a prevalent
teaching of the Vedic/Brahmanic religious teachings. The Buddha
belongs to the Sramana (philosophical) era when there was a great
evolutionary leap in ideas. During this era, there are many
philosophers proposing new ideas for a paradigm change. This
phenomenon is also observed during almost the same period in China
and Greece. So, if you like, the Buddha and his followers belongs to
a bigger and wider group of people generally called the Sramana
movement. And, yes, you may have guessed so - the founder of Jainism,
can be said (academically) to belong to this new movement too. The
general characteristics of the Sramana movement is it opposed many
things that are considered norms in the Vedic fold. However, mere
opposition would be carry the movement to any great length. Indeed,
each of the groups proposed new ideas to replace the Vedic/Brahmanic
philosophy. Although the main idea is to replace the Vedic
philosophical system in its entirety, it is possible that some groups
retain certain concepts of Brahmanism. One example, which I think is
now very clear, is Jainism's retaining the idea of 'soul' from
Brahmanism. It is of course NOT true to say that Buddhism has nothing
in common at all with Brahmanism. Buddhism has the concept of
karma/kamma, this term has a similar "baseline" meaning as its usage
in Brahmanism. It means action in both religion. But if we were to
further study the doctrine of kamma in both religions, we will notice
that there is a great difference.
#2. PTS Dictionary: Attan
The soul as postulated in the animistic theories held in N India in
the 6th and 7th cent. B. C. It is described in the Upanishads as a
small creature, in shape like a man, dwelling in ordinary times in
the heart. It escapes from the body in sleep or trance; when it
returns to the body life and motion reappear. It escapes from the
body at death, then continues to carry on an everlasting life of its
own. For numerous other details see Rh. D. Theory of Soul in the
Upanishads J R A S 1899. Bt. India 251--255. Buddhism repudiated all
such theories, thus differing from other religions. Sixteen such
theories about the soul D I.31. Seven other theories D I.34. Three
others D I.186/7. A "soul" according to general belief was some thing
permanent, unchangeable, not affected by sorrow S IV.54 = Kvu 67; Vin
I.14; M I.138.
:-) The dictionary describe the word attan as soul in Vedic animistic
theories. Buddhism is definitely far from being an animistic
religion. I do not know how Jainism describe soul. By referring to
#1, we know that each religion has an almost different interpretation
of such an entity. But Buddha denies its existence, and it is
noteworthy to know that he wasn't the only one who denies it. There
are several Sramana groups that deny the existence of a soul. Of
course, each has its own reasoning. Buddha was a well-learned person,
both from his childhood education and his 6-year pre-enlightenment
learning. If we look under #2, the Buddha mentioned 16 theories in
total in regard to soul in just the Digha Nikaya alone. His chief
objective was to point out the futility of such views.
:-) The idea of not having a soul seems very peculiar. Maybe not from
a secular viewpoint, but definitely from a religious standpoint. All
religions, with the exception of perhaps only Buddhism, talk about
soul or spirit. It is therefore not surprising that throughout
history, even long after the Buddha, buddhists and non-buddhists
alike are trying to grasp the possibility of salvation without a
soul. (Just as people would wonder how they could speaking to each
other without a face-to-face meeting.) Many buddhist philosophers has
carried the concept of "soullessness" to creatively new levels.
Especially in the Mahayana schools, there are several convincing
reasoning for this topic.
:-) Soullessness, impermanence and suffering are three interlinked
concepts in Buddhism. Impermanence refers to the transient nature of
life, it is this transient nature of life that the Buddha have
clearly understood, while others either indulge in pleasures that are
not lasting or are ignorant of the underlying facts of existence:
soullessness, impermanece and suffering.