Anatman - Soul or No Soul

Last semester I took a Hinanyana Buddhist Course and the Professor said that Buddhists do not believe there is a soul; this is called anatman meaning 'no soul' versus the Hinduist belief of 'atman' which is a permanent soul. Instead, Buddhists believe that all the elements/aggregates which compose a person disintegrate at death and reintegrate during rebirth.

Upon further reading, one of the authors of my textbooks states that Buddha Sakyamuni did not actually deny the existence of the soul. He felt that to elaborate further on the topic would confuse more people and thus it became one of the ten unanswerable questions. He said that to say there is 'no soul' would be would to side with the annihalists and to say that there is a 'soul' would be to side with the eternalists.

However, Grandmaster addresses this subject and says there IS a soul. In all his stories he is always talking about his encounters with such souls. So I raised my hand in class and said, "My guru says that there IS a soul." And the professor laughed at me (he does not like Grandmaster, he is very stubborn) and told me that he does not know what Grandmaster is talking about and told me to ask him instead.

Can someone please tell me then, why do all orthodox Buddhists say there is 'no soul' and that the aggregrates of an individual disintegrate and reintegrate at death but Grandmaster clearly indicates that there is a soul. Is Grandmaster saying that as a matter of convenience and reference such as using the word 'I' because he feels it is beyond our understanding to comprehend the meaning of 'no soul' and 'soul'?

Well, one thing you should have learned by now, if nothing else, is that professors are sometimes full of it. :)
I think that it might be just a matter of definition, or the lack of it. Sometimes people ask, "Do you believe in the existence of God?", when actually they are asking "Do you believe in the existence of my concept of God?" So, "Do you believe in the existence of a soul?" often is really, "Do you believe in the Judao-Christian concept of a soul?"
As for whether there is a soul or not, I can't say. I know, I just can't say.  ;)
If there is, then that creates a lot of problems; if there is not then that also creates a lot of problems, as you mentioned about the eternalists and the nihilists.
My main question relates to the fact that I am not a fixed identity. Not now, not in the past nor in the future will you find more than something like a trend or a pattern. Merely a process in action. The 'me' I was when I was five years old is certainly not the same as the 'me' I was when I was fifteen, thirty five, fifty, etc. and none of these is the same as what I am or will be. Not completely different, but not the same either.
One of the best teachings I ever had was this:
"To understand the future, look to the present; to understand the past, look to the present.To understand the present, look to the present." Look at what is in front of you. So, in relating back to the question, "Is there a 5 year old Darrell McLaughlin?" No. A 15 year old Darrell? and so on? No.
When I die, will there be a (hopefully) 98 year old Darrell? No. Not at all, but it would not be correct to say that the 5 year old disintegrated and was reformed as a 6 year old or as a 98 year old, nor would it be correct to day that they are all the same person.  I am trying to use, in this life, the 'me' as an analogy to a 'soul'.
But you mentioned 'profitless questions' and that is the point. As in the evolution/creation debate, if we came into being by a long process of evolution, or if the world was zapped into being yesterday at 10:23 am, it doesn't change the choices and challenges we must deal with today.
If "I" will exist in some form forever and ever, or if "I" will be totally annihilated and cease to exist in a few years, either way is enough to make a person live differently. Like whether we are alone in the Universe or not. We either are all alone and unique, or there are others. Either possibility just blows my mind and serves as proof that we should try to be better people. Same with soul or not.

Wow! Thanks Darrell, that helps a lot. I understand now! You are saying that at every fleeting moment, the aggregates and consciousness etc. come together to form a soul but at every fleeting moment it is also changing and thus the soul is not an eternal soul such as that viewed in Hinduism. Thus, to say that it is really one or the other is wrong right? It is more understanding and experience than what can be described by words since words are so limited and contradictory. Yes, I understand completely now. Thanks for enlightening me.


Sadly, I am dissappointed at the curriculum of the Buddhist courses and the professors which teach them at my University. I feel that some of them are so strict and rigid that they won't accept any other points of views other than theirs. It's almost as if they are set on their cosmology and way of looking at it and anything other than that is wrong. One time I wanted to write an Essay about Grandmaster. (I forgot about what topic.) When I submitted the proposal to my professor he told me that he wanted evidence and I had to look for it either in the Chinese, Pali, or Sanskrit Canon. First I cannot even read those languages and even if I could it is virtually impossible for me to sift through a hundred books of sutras and scriptures to find evidence for a simple essay. I really don't think the professor had any intention for me to write the essay. It was his way of saying, "I don't accept Grandmaster and his teachings," and if you want to write about those things I'm going to make it next to impossible for you to do. What is even worse is that the same few professors teach ALL the Buddhist courses at the University so one cannot find the same course taught by a different professor. While I feel it is necessary to learn about the history about Buddhism and traditional orthodox doctrines and texts, I also feel that the curriculum really misses the essence of Buddhism.

To end the story...I ended up writing an essay trying to interpret a translated Pali Sutra and I used the Buddhist books that my Professor had written as evidence to support the sutra. Since the professor believes that everything he believes and writes is the only correct view, then naturally he cannot give me a bad mark on my essay. If I got a bad mark on my essay he would be saying that he is wrong! hehe...so I guess I used his stubborness to my advantage and I did end up getting a good mark on my essay...I think it was an 'A.'  ;D

hehe..you are picking apart my words..I meant to say the "concept of soul as viewed by those traditional Hindus who are eternalists" (*takes a breath*) ..such a long title.

But honestly, I don't think negatively about Hinduism nor do I feel that it is on the opposite spectrum of Buddhisim. In fact, I see more similarities than differences. To me, all doctrines in any religion have a level of Truth and are perfect. I respect all religions deeply and so I never meant to say that one is bad while the other is good...I think it just came out that way.

You know when I really stopped paying attention to criticism of the True Buddha Dharma? When the same folks who had said that it was a false teaching, in the same criticism, said that it was really nothing new....just a conglomeration of elements of all sorts of elements from all sorts of traditions. If it is false, then how can it be from all sorts of traditions, unless they are all false too?
That it is nothing new speaks well of it.

#If it is false, then how can it be from all sorts of traditions, #unless they are all false too?
#That it is nothing new speaks well of it.  

;D full of wisdom

Mimosa