Dear Samatha and friends,

--- In Pali@..., "samathasavaka" <samathasavaka@...> wrote:
> Hello Yong Peng, i'd like to note that this definition you give us
> along with the comentary is a bit strange, because not only in
> Hinduism the idea of 'something' (to not call it Soul for those
with
> aversion to the word) does in fact goes to a new body after the
death
> of the current one. We have in the Suttas hundreds of tales were
> Gotama Buddha recalls his past lives for example.

The definition DOES come from the authoritative Britannica. I put it
as the first quote merely to illustrate that different religions take
a different stand to soul theory. In fact, we can say that it is for
the convenience of academic study that we generalise them as 'soul's.
But from an individualistic perspective, the Egyptian dual soul is
different from the Christian better refined soul. The concept of a
soul is nonetheless, on a theological basis, to support and reinforce
concepts such as creation and soforth.

> I see that the main difference between Vedic religion and the one
> Gotama Buddha preached was essentially with regards to the way to
> attain the fruit the religion preached, which include rituals,
prayer
> and other methods. Gotama's Buddha revolution, in my view, was to
> properly understand what was being said in the Vedas and
Upanishads,
> thereby ending with the confusion that prevailed regarding wether
or
> not the religion was effective.

Do you mean that Buddhism and Brahmanism/Hinduism share the same
religious goal? From both a theological and buddhist viewpoint, you
are wrong. From a theological viewpoint, Hinduism is basically a
polytheism while Buddhism is atheism. They are both fundamentally
different in their views and goals. The claim you have made is what
had actually caused Buddhism to disappear in India. So beware. From a
buddhist viewpoint, the Buddha was no revolutionary, he is a
discoverer and share with the Indian people of his time his
discoveries. He had to communicate with them in the proper context,
he had to speak in their language. Many of the suttas have to be read
in this light. Furthermore, some of the older English translations
can be quite "crude" in the use of words, but they do reveal the
audience characteristic the Buddha was addressing.

I would not say that Buddha hated or disliked any Brahmanic theories.
That's not the way Buddhism works, definitely not "passionistic".
Rather, he was revealing the fact that such theories are unnecessary
and even obstructive to understand the true nature of life and
attaining enlightenment. You are not wrong to say that the Buddha did
point out faults of the Vedic belief. If you read the Tipitaka, there
are many areas where the Buddha dismisses concepts of different
belief systems, not just Vedic but Sramanic too. These are generally
classified as 'wrong views'. And I see there is no reason why the
Buddha, as a compassionate person on one hand and a philosopher on
another, would not contrast his religion with others.

> I have never come across a passage in the Suttas/Sutras that denies
> the existence of a soul, like i said in another post, i've only
seen
> Buddha denying the khandas to be the soul, or denying dharmas
> (phenomena, things) to be the soul.

Neither have I, I guessed the main contents of the Tipitaka is not to
promote a soul or deny a soul, but on the four noble truths and noble
eightfold path. Fortunately, the authors of the Tipitaka did not get
the priority wrong. :-) However, I am pretty sure that there are many
passages where the Buddha directly or indirectly dismiss the soul
theory. I hope that other members on list can give us some relevant
quotations.

> I bring this up in regards the Animistic comments, for if the
khandas
> are animated (live) due to their own grace, why are they said to be
> empty and without substance?

Animism has nothing to do with animation. The word animistic means
the belief in the existence of individual spirits that inhabit
natural objects and phenomena. For example, the belief of tree
spirits and so forth. It is a category consisting of many primitive
religions.

> Salvation in Buddhism, imho, is reaching the other shore, where we
> realize freedom from dukkha. What realizes this freedom though?

Well, certainly not a soul. Btw, just a short question. What is
needed to gain enlightenment? You may like to meditate on this. :-)

Yours sincerely,

Yong Peng.