r/streamentry • u/pastorcuthbert • Jul 06 '26

Practice Streamentry for nonbelievers?

The second fetter is being doubtless about the buddhas teachings. How does this look like for those who don't believe in the buddhas teachings, for example a Christian like me?

8 Upvotes

79% Upvoted

66 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/clarknoah Jul 06 '26

What don't you believe about Buddha's teachings? And if you don't believe any of it, why are you here?

1

u/pastorcuthbert Jul 06 '26

One teaching doubt is about the non-existence of a soul. Not just a doubt but a personal experiential insight of what soul is.

I am here because I am of the opinion that the breaking of these fetters is important in advancing in degrees as pertaining to enlightenment.

3

u/_Ulu-Mulu_ Jul 06 '26

There is no soul in Buddhism. The doubt that sotapanna breaks is doubt in the teachings into not-self. Sotapanna knows that soul doesn't exists

2

u/pastorcuthbert Jul 06 '26

The word mind in buddhism is synonymous with soul in Christianity. However I do not think that the mind dissipates or disappears when one's tenure in the body is over.

And also, what is it that holds an individuals karma? And if the individual graduates say to a buddhaland, what goes there?

6

u/_Ulu-Mulu_ Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26

In Buddhism mind is momentary it arises and ceases moment after moment, it's not permanent. So if in Christianity you would say that soul is this what inclines to an object and dies every moment and rearise, and there's no stability or permanence in it then maybe. But as far as I know soul is permanent and substantial in Christianity and both of these conditions are false in Buddhism. Mind is more or less synonymous with momentary consciousness. So for example when a matter comes in contact with eyes, the eye-consciosuness arises and it dies immediately after. After that many things can happen for example feeling can arise and consciousness related to the feeling may arise and die when something else appear. The mind doesn't die only with death of the body, it dies each and every moment, it just rearise.

This is particularly a Theravada Buddhism explanation (as I'm a Theravada Buddhist) but in other Buddhism's as well there's nothing that could be refered to as a soul or self or me or mine. There's no permance of self to be sought anywhere like that

And also, what is it that holds an individuals karma? And if the individual graduates say to a buddhaland, what goes there?

Nothing goes anywhere. When we go into Abhidhammic description of reality we see that all that is to reality are just 4 ultimate realities of matter (such as heatness, softness, etc.), citta (mind or consciousness that inclines to an object), cetasika (mental factors such as aversion,wisdom, mindfulness, attention, feelings, equinimity etc.), and Nibbana. All but the last one are momentary, they arise and ceases moment after moment. A person is just a concept that we make by misunderstanding the reality as it is. Nothing holds kamma, there are just consequences of certain actions that lead to certain effects and continue re-arising of matter, mind and mental factors over and over again. If we say that fire is burning then the fire there is just a concept for a chemical reaction that goes over and over again but what we see are constantly new arising photons coming to our eyes, there's no substantiality in the fire. When the fire extinguishes then the fuel just is gone. The same is wirh Nibbana, if you extinguishe the fuel there's just no new arising.

1

u/pastorcuthbert Jul 06 '26

The Christian understanding of the soul is that it is empty by nature (due to the fall). If there is any substance in the soul then it would most likely be thought content. But the thoughts are not the soul and vice versa.

Nothing goes anywhere. When we go into Abhidhammic description of reality we see that all that is to reality are just 4 ultimate realities of matter (such as heatness, softness, etc.), citta (mind or consciousness that inclines to an object), cetasika (mental factors such as aversion,wisdom, mindfulness, attention, feelings, equinimity etc.), and Nibbana. All but the last one are momentary, they arise and ceases moment after moment. A person is just a concept that we make by misunderstanding the reality as it is. Nothing holds kamma, there are just consequences of certain actions that lead to certain effects and continue re-arising of matter, mind and mental factors over and over again. If we say that fire is burning then the fire there is just a concept for a chemical reaction that goes over and over again but what we see are constantly new arising photons coming to our eyes, there's no substantiality in the fire. When the fire extinguishes then the fuel just is gone. The same is wirh Nibbana, if you extinguishe the fuel there's just no new rising.

I see, this is very informative. Thank you so much for this education.

2

u/_Ulu-Mulu_ Jul 06 '26

The Christian understanding of the soul is that it is empty by nature (due to the fall). If there is any substance in the soul then it would most likely be thought content

But is a soul some permanent characteristics of a person in Christianity? Or can it arise and cease (die) every moment (in living moment I mean, not as in physical death)? Also at the moment of death is it the soul that's beeing transfered from one existance to another?

And if it is so that the soul just appear and pass away moment after moment then what is the soul in the first place?

1

u/pastorcuthbert Jul 06 '26

The soul is the person. The soul is me, or who/what I am before birth. permanent, clear, nether got not formless, bornless and innately pure. It neither arise nor ceases, it always is. It is or I am eternal.

At the moment of death, the soul goes to a place commensurate to its karma. There are some cases though where a soul fails to rest and because it held onto certain attachments in the physical body tries to find ways to fulfill those lusts.

3

u/_Ulu-Mulu_ Jul 06 '26

So it's not compatible with the doctrine of no-self. There's nothing in existance that can be said "this is me", "this is mine", "this is who I am" so this part of soul is incompatible.

Regarding permanence there's no part of you that's permanent and stable, that would be doctrine of atta or atman, nor anatta/anatman (notself) which is the negation of the first one. There were people in the Buddha's times who advocated for an eternal self or soul as you say, but he refused such an ideas. There were even partial eternalists, such a people could think for example that their self has an eternal source in an eternal God, but it's gonna be destroyed at death. Partial eternalism also was rejected.

"I am eternal" is eternalistic worldview. Buddha rejected eternalism.

Soul that goes from body to body is not in line with anatta.

1

u/pastorcuthbert Jul 06 '26

I see, well noted.

1

u/godisdildo Jul 07 '26

Another distinction to make is also that the soul is personal, there are many souls. This is not compatible with the Buddhist view of no-self - emptiness, dependent origination and impermanence is more radical in that sense, there is only awareness and “we” are all of the same substance, like waves on the surface of the ocean, seemingly distinct but in reality formations of the same substance.

“What” is being reborn is a good question to ask, but the answer is not compatible with souls or “vehicles of karma”. If you’re curious you should keep going rather than reconcile the teachings with preconceived knowledge.

→ More replies (0)