In Buddhism, there is ultimately no 'self'. That's why Buddhists never talk about the 'soul'.
The Buddha taught that everything arises as a result of conditions, and passes away when those conditions cease. There is no essential 'self' - only a continually changing being, responding to different conditions.
However, there is the 'Buddha Nature' in all of us. But the 'Buddha Nature' is not an individualist thing. When you touch the 'Buddha Nature', you touch everything. The Buddha Nature is all. You understand that nothing is seperate (including the 'self').
In yoga though, there is a 'self', since yoga is based on Hinduism. There is a lot in common between Hinduism and Buddhism, but a big difference is that Hindu's believe in some essential individual 'soul'. Buddhists do not.
'Buddhism teaches that all things are in a constant state of flux: all is changing, and no permanent state exists by itself. This applies to human beings as much as to anything else in the cosmos. Thus, a human being has no permanent self. According to this doctrine of anatta (Pāli; Sanskrit: anātman) - "no-self" or "no soul" - the words "I" or "me" do not refer to any fixed thing. They are simply convenient terms that allow us to refer to an ever-changing entity.'
The concept of no self is complicated though, as is it's relation to Hindism's version of 'self'
Comments 2
(The comment has been removed)
The Buddha taught that everything arises as a result of conditions, and passes away when those conditions cease. There is no essential 'self' - only a continually changing being, responding to different conditions.
However, there is the 'Buddha Nature' in all of us. But the 'Buddha Nature' is not an individualist thing. When you touch the 'Buddha Nature', you touch everything. The Buddha Nature is all. You understand that nothing is seperate (including the 'self').
At least that is my understanding at the moment.
Reply
'Buddhism teaches that all things are in a constant state of flux: all is changing, and no permanent state exists by itself. This applies to human beings as much as to anything else in the cosmos. Thus, a human being has no permanent self. According to this doctrine of anatta (Pāli; Sanskrit: anātman) - "no-self" or "no soul" - the words "I" or "me" do not refer to any fixed thing. They are simply convenient terms that allow us to refer to an ever-changing entity.'
The concept of no self is complicated though, as is it's relation to Hindism's version of 'self'
Reply
Leave a comment