If all living things have souls, and there are trillions (recently clarified in a GQ post) of living cells in the human body, are there a trillion souls in a living human ?
Also, do these souls have individual karma or a collective karma ? And cells die and are born at different times in the body. So is karma a dynamic entity ?
There is no soul, so that’s only a moot point.
That was an easy one!
A cell isn’t capable of surviving outside the human body, so calling it a separate entity is questionable at best.
I personally don’t believe in souls either, but the Eastern (i.e. Hindu, Buddhist) view would be that souls would attach to organisms as opposed to literally each individual cell. (they didn’t know about microbiology when they made this shit up)
There are some types of Hinduism, such as Advaita, which would say that there is really only ONE soul (atman) which is identical with God (Brahman)
The Zen view would be that it’s a waste of time to worry about.
It’s a clever question though.
No, in Buddhism, there is no soul. Which is to say that all things are Buddha in nature and all separations only exist in our perception of things, not in their true nature. Buddha nature is not something that “attaches” itself to another thing. Water doesn’t attach itself to the ocean, nor does it attach itself to waves, tides and currents.
The mental state in which you perceive things that way is called dhyana in sanskritt, which translates to chan’na in Chinese and becomes zen’na in Japanese, usually shortened to Zen. So seeking to see into your true nature isn’t a waste of time for Zen practitioners.
And no human body is capable of surviving on its own outside the biosphere, so calling it a separate entity is not quite accurate either. From a Buddhist point of view, that is.
Ok, I was oversimplifying a little. Buddhists don’t call it a “soul” but many schools of Buddhism do believe in a consciousness which survives death and is reincarnated. Not all Buddhists believe this. I was referring to this as “soul” just for clarity.
I didn’t literally mean they “attach” themselves, it was just a clumsy choice of words.
When I said that practitioners of Zen (or “Chan” or “Dhyana”, they all just mean “meditation”) would consider it a waste of time, I mean that hair-splitting philosophical discussions or semantic distinctions are seen as a distraction. You can’t “think” your way into enlightenment. As someone who has been a practitioner of Zen meditation for the last eight years, I think I can safely say that the worrying about the definition of a soul (or even the existence of one) is not important to the goal of Zen, which is the immediate, objective, egoless experience of life.
I’m sorry I misread your post. I’ve been practicing Zen for a few years, and though I still really know nothing, I’ve been at it long enough to appreciate the intensely active nature of Zen. For this reason I’m a little weary of the passive-nihilistic view of Zen some people seem to have. There’s a difference between viewing zazen as not doing anything, and zazen as doing nothing.
AFAIK all sects of Buddhism believe in the existence of souls.
No, read my post above, none of them do. There is disagreement, however, about what happens to consciousness after death. Some sects (Zen) argue the question is not important, others teach that consciousness continues beyond death and is reincarnated in another physical form. However, the belief in a separate, independant spiritual entity goes against the most basic and fundamental teachings of the Buddha.
How is that so? The basis of Buddhism is attending enlightenment, and the religion itself is an offshoot of Hinduism. Now, how does one enters into enlightenment without a soul? It’s not the body that does it, yes?
Buddhism is not an offshoot of Hinduism, though it recycles a lot of concepts from Brahmanism, modern Hinduism’s ancestor. There are many, many different schools and sects encompassing a wide range of beliefs and practices. However, they all share at the very least, the four Noble Truths, the Buddha’s central and fundamental teaching.
They are:
I - All sentience is suffering (dukkha).
II- Passions are the root of suffering.
III - To see into one’s true nature is to unroot passion and end suffering.
IV - The way to achieve this is the Eightfold Path.
Passions direct our lives because we think we’re something special, we’re convinced that we are special and different from everyone and everything else. That’s why all our actions, our thoughts and perceptions are centered around the ego, the self. However, that’s not the way things are. There is nothing special, separate, independant, in short, there is no individual soul. Enlightenment is to come to realize this, to change your perception to see dualities for what they are: a function, a product of your mind. Nothing more.
Meditation is an intensily physical activity - in the sense that it’s something you do with the whole of your body. However, Buddhism makes no distinction between mind and body, à la Descartes. Body and mind are entirely dependant on each other. So, it’s neither the body, nor the mind that achieves enlightenment on its own.
You could view souls as nothing more than indelible grooves, abraded into the fabric of the universe by living things; the ‘more living’ a thing is (and you could include sentience in that), and the longer it persists, the deeper the groove.
As far as I know, it does. One of the central idea is this entire world is just an illusion, it’s all in your mind. Now, if there is no distinction, from where did this idea come?
No, Buddhism doesn’t teach that the world is all in your mind. The world is quite real. What is all in your mind are the segmentations, the divisions. Take your computer screen for instance. It’s there, for sure, but it’s not fundamentally different from anything else. You and your screen are one and the same thing. The conviction that you, your screen and your desk are separate entities is the illusion that buddhism talks about.
This great illusion is kind of the original sin in Buddhism. All sentient beings fall for it, that’s the first Noble Truth. Why are we like that? That’s a question that fueled a great many philosophers.
Some new agers believe that humans have individual souls but other animals have collective souls, one soul per species(see “The Seat of the Soul” by Gary Zukov). This doesn’t sit right with me somehow.
jovan or DtC, could you guys recommend a Zen primer? I know a little about Zen, but after reading this thread, I realize I don’t understand it all that well.
Urban Ranger, I’m quite sure I don’t know as much as, say, jovan about Buddhism and other Eastern religions/philosophies but I know enough to assure you that he’s not pulling your leg.
Buddhism doesn’t lend itself to concise explanation in “Western” terms, I’m afraid. I imagine it sounds like something very close to nonsense to hear that you are your computer screen, for example. Furthermore, even if you believed this to be true intellectually (which I do, in a way), that’s not the same thing at all as feeling it in your bones to be true (which I’ve glimpsed only rarely).
who me?: I throughly enjoy the works of Alan Watts. The Way of Zen is, as I understand it, probably the definitive work on Zen by a Westerner (though I’ve never read it). I have read, and heartily recommend, The Wisdom of Insecurity and The Book (which aren’t striclty about Zen – the Book is actually about vedanta Hinduism – but will still give you an excellent idea of what the hell jovan and Diogenes are talking about).
See also Janwillem Van De Wettering, The Empty Mirror and A Glimpse of Nothingness, about his experiences living in a Japanese and an American Zen community, respectively.
There are many decent books out on Zen, a few not so good, and I haven’t read most of them. My personal recomendations are:
The Three Pillars of Zen by Philip Kapleau. Philip Kapleau was one of the very first westerners to study Zen seriously in Japan. The book is mostly based on the teachings of his master, Yasutani-roshi. It’s a very good look at the practice of Zen, and it’s been a great source of inspiration for many people.
Instructions to the Zen Cook by Dogen Kigen. It’s a great essay by one of the greatest Japanese Zen monks. No recipes, but a guide to Zen applied to everyday life. Might be hard to find.
Essays on Zen Buddhism by Daisetsu Suzuki. A classic if there is one, but it probably shouldn’t be read without the Three Pillars. Suzuki was a scholar, and he writes as a scholar not as a master. It’s an essential work if you seek to understand the historical and philosophical context of Zen.
thanks y’all. 
Hey Jovan, The fact that you feel you “…know nothing” shows that you’ve learned a lot.
I agree that Alan Watts’ books are great. Also check out ZEN FLESH ZEN BONES, a collection of Zen stories and koans.
My religion is only as eastern as New York City, but everything is a subset of one event/object, which is the Big Bang / universe. Anything which is the nature of some small part of that is reflected in some way (sort of like a hologram) by all of the others as well, and can also be said to be an attribute of the whole.