[Buddha-l] query about a term in Japanese zen, translated as "soul" in one text.

[Jo]

Hi Jamie,
Thanks a lot for getting in.  Please say more about viññāṇa. I've sure missed out on that one.
Joanna 

_________________


Gee-- since I know nothing of Tibetan or early Buddhism, I might as well jump in here. Isn't the Pali version of what transmigrates the consciousness aggregate, viññāṇa*?* Which is as impermanent in the process as it is in the earlier and later embodied states?

OTOH, the Tibetans and most other Buddhist traditions certainly do develop with the various "subtles" (I like that term). But even those are in the earlier traditions (cittaprakrti).

And though I even know less about Greek philosophy, I do believe that what we come to know as "soul" was influenced by Plato's ideas of "idea" or real forms that exist behind the ever-changing world and are permanent. And that is the key difference between annata and any kind of soul-- is it permanent, which, in the Buddhist view, entails independence as well.
Impermanent and dependent is what the Buddhists like.

The Japanese are another case. Certainly the "spirits" (tamashii 魂, reikon
霊魂, etc.) are neither permanent nor independent. Still, except in some sophisticated thinkers, it is quite clear that in contemporary Japan there is no functional or operational notion of rebirth-- you die, and your spirit hangs out in the spirit world. Hmmmm-- I wonder if the Japanese ever really believed in rebirth the way, say, the Tibetans do?

Jamie Hubbard

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Jo <jkirk at spro.net> wrote:

> Good point, Christopher.
> Also, as long as it's required to believe that transmigration happens, 
> then something there is that has to transmigrate. The Tibetans seem to 
> be trying to get around the anatta conundrum by inventing the subtles.
> Joanna
>
> On Behalf Of Christopher Fynn
> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 9:35 PM.
>
> Not directly related to the question  What is the Japanese term for "soul"
> but in his introduction to Gyurme Dorje's translation of "The Tibetan 
> Book of the Dead" the Dalai Lama first says that Buddhist philosophy 
> does not accept the existence of an independent autonomous entity, 
> known as the 'self', essence or 'soul' of a person - but he then goes 
> on to speak of a "subtle body" and "subtle mind", and a "subtle person 
> or self which is designated in dependence on the subtle body and subtle mind".
>
> Now as soon as you have  a notion of a "subtle person or self" which 
> survives physical death - I can see someone translating that as "soul".