Still not following.
The atman is different from the western concept of a soul. When Buddhists speak of the “self,” they are speaking of the ego- the semse of “I” that is a psychological illusion. For those who believe in reincarnation, this “I” disappears at death and is not transmuted with the soul.
Beyond reducing the core tenents of Buddhism to “follow your bliss”, and using fuzzy semantics to move the goalpost any time a hint of conflict arises, I honestly don’t see how your objections could be called enlightening. I studied Indian religion enough to know about atman, brahman, and how the Buddhist evolution of the concept of samsara tends to conflict with the notion of the lesser and greater self having any metaphysical “substance”. ANY form of permanent self is illusory in the Buddhist framework, so if you want to separate ego from “soul” and say there’s no conflict, you render “soul” completely superfluous for all practical purposes. I cannot see how this would not stand in rather stark opposition to Christian concepts of a soul, being very much a permanent, feeling, conscious and evolving entity which temporarily inhabits the flesh. The Buddha, as far as I understand, stated clearly rebirth does not require transmigration of a soul, but is simple cause-and-effect, and further that the idea of a permanent self is illusory.
I’m sure you’ll simply brush the argument aside by accusing me of being obtuse, in your usual manner, but I remain quite unconvinced there aren’t necessary difficulties without greatly relaxing the core philosophies of either tradition. Certainly one is free to do that, but they should at least acknowledge it.
I’ve done neither.
It might render the “soul” as being superfluous to Buddhist discipline but that doesn’t mean that Buddhism necessarily precludes a belief in a soul. just that the existence of a soul is not relevant to the discipline.
I think this preoccupation with anatta is just reaching for a conflict.
So, you’re essentially saying Buddhists don’t really care? Fine. What about Christians? They wouldn’t have problems with the idea of salvation not involving an immortal soul? I’m not just reaching for conflict, I’m having a hard time seeing how a Christian could accept the idea that souls don’t matter; and I don’t think the Buddhist philosophy can be so easily reduced to “believe whatever you like as long as you gain enlightenment”, since part of the process of enlightenment would seem to involve the denial of the existence of a permanent self.
Souls don’t matter to the goals of Buddhism but the goals of Buddhism have nothing to do with an afterlife. Enlightenment is something to be achieved in the here and now, not after death.
That’s not to say that you can’t also pursue the goals of Christianity. Buddhist disciplines can actually be employed as a means to achieving Christian goals and vice versa.
I think of Buddhist cognitive disciplines as being akin to the practice of certain yogas. Christians can practice a physical discipline like hatha yoga simply for its physiological and psychological benefits without any necessary contradiction to their own religious doctrine.
While in theory this is true, in practice it doesn’t quite work out that way. In my experience (only familiar with Thai Buddhism, which is at least somewhat different than other forms), the Lord Buddha is highly venerated if not outright worshiped. I’d say he’s somewhere between Jesus and the Pope, as a comparison to Catholics. Of course this is a country (like some other Buddhist countries) where the King was also considered divine until fairly recently. Some Thais worship whichever “gods” they think might help them out, bring them luck, keep them fed, etc. They also often believe in spirits, maybe close to the western belief of some folks in ghosts, that are said to inhabit everything. I attended/participated in a dedication of two spirit houses at a factory in Chachoeongsao, one to the local spirits and one to some more “heavenly” spirits (I’m not sure which ones they were supposed to be). This was done by fairly well educated folks. Some habits die hard.
So, philosophically, from the Buddhist standpoint no problem. Realistically all around there are pitfalls to not breaking some Christian rules except for some of the most liberal forms of Christianity.
I’ve been pursuing Buddhism (Theravada lineage) for some years now, and I see Buddhism as being fundamentally in conflict with Christianity. There are a number of areas where this conflict is particularly evident, among which are:
God: while various strains of Buddhism have gods of one sort or another, the all-powerful, all-knowing one that Christianity posits is at odds with Buddhist thought. Gods are largely irrelevant to Buddhism. AFAIK, they are always portrayed as beings who have a cushier existence than humans, but which are still subject to the Four Noble Truths. [BTW, atman is not a Buddhist belief.]
Sin: Buddhists don’t have sin in the sense that Christians do. They may do things which are “unskillful,” i.e., leading toward suffering and away from awakening, but that doesn’t line up with the Christian notion of sin.
Self/Soul: Buddhism rejects the idea that a permanent self or soul exists, but this is central to Christian belief.
Vicarious atonement: [Buddhist becomes bald from scratching head].
But that’s just me, and while there are a lot of people like me, I have to mention that my meditation teacher is also into Christian contemplation (St. Theresa et al.) and doesn’t have any problem with blending the two. One of these days I’ll ask her how not, but it never seemed terribly important to me. Also, a number of the people I meditate with are members of various (liberal) Christian denominations, and they too don’t seem to get too hung up on blending the two.
On the whole, it can be safely said that the western version of Buddhism is still being created. I’d imagine that a lot of what we do and believe (and don’t do and believe) would drive a fundy Buddhist of any stripe straight up the wall. Whether they like it or not, though, Buddhism has always been syncretistic, and I see no reason why this shouldn’t remain so in the west.
The problem lies in interpreting the concept of Self. I can assign two definitions to the word. 1)Self as perceiving object 2)Self as the current bounded manifestation i.e. with a body, identity, form…etc. So, depending on how you read ‘Self’ in the original texts, there may or may not be a conflict.