#no-soul

[blem-0910]

I imagine 8-ball told him to do This (this is hardly his character I was just dossing around cause I knew I looked like a tool lol)

This character is not mine!!! It belongs to @robot-scout and is from the webcomic

bigtimebigtop.thecomicseries.com

Please go give the artist and their work lots of love!!! They really deserve it! And alllssooo they're making a GAAAAAMMMEEE! Go check out @eppafross <3

[thebrokengentleman0]

And another one I spent too much time on XD

[lilkrazykat]

for @robot-scout uhm i really liked one of the designs for the fusion between 8-ball/kenny and no-soul that being them in hoodie so i just had to draw whaddya think? 

btw check out the comic their from its stinkin awesome X3

http://bigtimebigtop.thecomicseries.com/

[static-brainz]

hello yes i draw ur characters a lot and ur prolly annoyed but here u go i lobve this boye!!!!!! sorry the blinking isnt too fluid TwT

@robot-scout

[ox-head]

Whereas one of the pre-Buddhist philosophers (Ajita, as quoted above) does not allow for any soul at all, another (named Pakudha Kaccāyano, who is equally non-Buddhist) extends the list of four elements to allow a soul-element alongside the material components (producing a unique list of seven). (DN #2, PTS vol. 1, p. 56) Needless to say, the latter philosophy, also, was repudiated by ancient Buddhists.

Eisel Mazard, Mind and the Material Elements

[ox-head]

I do not think that anyone could dispute that [the 12 links] passage is (i) explicitly about the subject of incarnation (punabbhavābhinibbatti) and (ii) that we have most (though not all) of the familiar vocabulary from the 12-links formula presented in a series of stages leading up to that incarnation (that is concluded with a single stage that covers the whole of the succeeding life, old age and suffering unto death, ending the sequence: jātijarāmaraṇa)...I think that some of the resistance to this interpretation arises from a sense of disappointment that the 12 links are no longer bundled up with the abstractions of “the interdependence of all phenomena”; however, while the teaching is about birth, it is not merely about birth, and while it is about the fetus, it is not merely about the fetus. The grander meaning of the teaching is already very clear (in my opinion) from the texts that open and conclude this subsection: the “soulless” origin of human life is evidently a crucial part of the Buddha’s teaching of “no-soul” to adults, and is part and parcel of the liberation from the illusion of the soul/self that is so much talked about throughout the canon. These are not lectures about the fetus for the sake of talking about the fetus; they very much are part of the teaching of nibbāna,

Eisel Mazard, Causality and Canonicity

[cherry-dreamboat]

Cognitive dissonance:

Hindu Atman/Brahman vs. Buddhist Anatta ("no-soul")

Most of my beliefs align closely with Buddhism but this concept is causing some deep thought....Buddhists don't believe in any sort of soul, but they believe in rebirth. So my question is what is it that is transferred into the next life? Some places I'm reading regard it as being the unlying energy, independent of any temporal human ego or consciousness, that with your karma is transposed into a new being after death. But this is pretty similar to the beliefs of atman/brahman, but what I'm reading says these concept are two of the biggest distinctions between the theologies and that there's a great disparity with these beliefs, but I can't seem to see where that is!

Buddhism beliefs in no soul, whereas Atman is a human soul which I guess incorporates ego as a part of the ever-living soul of a person, which is where Buddhism says that they're wrong. But Atman is the individual consciousness which is wholly identical with the Brahman, the cosmic soul of the universe, which would imply that the ego differences between humans does not exist and all beings are in perfect synchronicity with the Brahman soul and this is where you return to when the body died. Buddhism believes in impermanence of absolutely everything, including a sense of self identification (ego) which makes sense and is why they disagree with the Atman as being an eternal manifestation of self. So I guess that's the distinction, but is Atman really all that affiliated with the ego? Do they think ego is eternal? If Atman is Brahman, that can't be so. So what's the deal??

I know I don't have to align myself with any particular religion and I should form my system of beliefs on my own introspection and contemplation of life and the universe, but I'm just trying to fully grasp these concepts.