Strictly speaking, we should not say we "have" a soul. Rather, we are a soul and the soul "has" a body it has aquired and is working through. Part of our task is to become aware of this truth.
Again, this is wrong, and is founded by a false belief in an Atman or an inherently existing Self. In reality no such Self can be found -- and the realisation that there is No-Self is Enlightenment.
This is the right way to understand it: Each moment (Self1, Self2, Self3) is complete and entire of its own. Self1, Self2, Self3, each arise in a Spontaneous and Disconnected fashion... and each arising of a Self1, Self2, this is Arising, re-Birth, etc. There is no fixed entity 'Self' at all -- there is no self to be found, apart from Self1, Self2, Self3, Self4, Self5, etc, arising in a spontaneous and disconnected way. There is
no movement in changes -- movement implies that Self exists in a connected way. No. No such Self can be found -- all things including your Self is empty of inherent existence.
Moments of mental states always change as Iron darts hit:
Observing the abrupt Change of all States discloses their discrete nature:
When continuity is disrupted means, when it is exposed by observation of
the perpetual alteration of states as they go on occurring in succession.
For it is not through the connectedness of states, that the characteristic of
impermanence becomes apparent to one who rightly observes rise and fall,
but rather the characteristic becomes properly evident through their discrete
disconnectedness, regarded as if each moment were iron darts, hitting in on
reality one by one separately, instead of as a continuous flow of slow change.
VismA. 824However, due to karmic propensity, the habitual momentum to act, correlate, and chain in a linear way, we see 'Self' as an entity... and furthermore we see in a dualistic way, as if there is an agent, doer, and experiencer in the world. This must be dissolved through insights.
Please read:
http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1677...A somber day, isn't it? Dark, cloudy, cool, moist and windy. Amazing, this whole affair of the weather!
We call it weather, but what is it really? Wind. Rain. Clouds slowly parting. Not the words spoken about it, but just this darkening, blowing, pounding and wetting, and then lightening up, blue sky appearing amid darkness, and sunshine sparkling on wet grasses and leaves. In a little while there'll be frost, snow and ice covers. And then warming again, melting, oozing water everywhere. On an early spring day the dirt road sparkles with streams of wet silver. So—what is weather other than this incessant change of earthly conditions and all the human thoughts, feelings and undertakings influenced by it? Like and dislike. Depression and elation. Creation and destruction. An ongoing, ever-changing stream of happenings abiding nowhere. No real entity weather exists anywhere except in thinking and talking about it.
Now, is there such an entity as me or I? Or is it just like the weather—an ongoing, ever-changing stream of ideas, images, memories, projections, likes and dislikes, creation and destruction, that thought keeps calling I, me, Toni, and thereby solidifying what is evanescent? What am I really, truly, and what do I merely think and believe I am?
Are we interested in exploring this amazing affair of myself from moment to moment? Is this, maybe, the essence of this work? Exploring ourselves attentively, beyond the peace and quiet that we are seeking and maybe finding occasionally? Coming upon an amazing insight into this deep sense of separation that we call me and other people, me and the world, without any need to condemn or overcome?...-----------------------
Here's another good read:
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/mahasi-anat/anat04.htmTHE STORY OF THE BHIKKHU SATIAt the time of the Blessed One there was a disciple named Sati who mistook consciousness to be self, and clung to the wrong view of self. The monk Sati declared that he had understood and grasped what the Buddha had taught thus:
Tadevidam vinnanam sandhavati samsarati anannam.
"It is this same consciousness that has been transmigrating and wandering about from existence to existence, no other."
This was his understanding of the Buddha's teaching. He based his views on the Jataka stories such as King Vessantara, Chaddan the elephant king, and Bhuridatta the Naga king, who were said to be some of the Buddha's previous existences. In his last existence as Buddha, there were no material aggregates of King Vessantara, nor of the elephant king or the Naga king, but Sati believed that the consciousness of the last existence as Buddha was the same that had existed previously as King Vessantara, the elephant king and the Naga king; it had remained undestroyed, enduring, and stable throughout the rounds of existence. This was how he understood and transmitted the Buddha's teaching. His belief was simply nivasi atta, clinging to consciousness as a continuous self.
The learned disciples of the Buddha tried to explain to him that his view was wrong, but Sati remained adamant, believing that he knew the Dhamma better than the other monks. It is not easy to point out the true Dhamma to those holding wrong views. They are apt to look down on their well-wishers as antiquated and behind the times, unlike their leader who innovates a new interpretation. As a matter of fact, anyone claiming to be of Buddhist faith should ponder well to see whether his or her views are in accordance with the teaching of the Buddha. If we hold onto views which do not accord with the Buddha's teaching, we are then outside the dispensation.
Having failed to persuade Sati to abandon his wrong views, some of the monks went and reported the matter to the Blessed One, who then sent for Sati. When asked by the Blessed One, Sati repeated his views: "Based on the Jataka stories as recounted by the Blessed One, I see that the present consciousness is the same as that one which had existed in previous lives. That consciousness has not reached destruction but passed on from existence to existence. This is how I understand."
The Buddha asked him what he meant by consciousness.
He replied, "Lord, consciousness is that which expresses, which feels, which experiences the fruits of good and bad deeds (now here, now there) in this existence, in that existence."
"To whomever, you stupid one, have you heard me expounding the doctrine in this manner?" remonstrated the Blessed One. "I have explained consciousness as arising out of conditions; that there is no arising of consciousness without conditions. In spite of that you have wrongly interpreted my teaching and attribute that wrong view to me. You have caused the arising of many bad deeds; your holding this wrong interpretation of my teaching and so talking about it will cause distress and suffering to you for a long time to come."
Sati, however, refused to give up that view. Dogmatic views are frightening. Sati was a monk, a disciple of the Buddha. He followed the Buddha's teaching and claimed to have understood it. Yet we find him obstinately refusing to give up his wrong views even when exhorted by the Buddha himself, which of course amounted to not having faith in the Buddha. Nowadays, too, there are some "religious teachers" teaching that there is no need to keep the five precepts or to practice meditation. They say it is enough just to understand the teaching. When wellintentioned learned people try to point out the true teaching to such "teachers," they are said to have replied scornfully that they would not abandon their views even if the Buddha himself came to teach them.
There are many instances where non-Dhamma is being handed around as Dhamma. It is essential to scrutinize any such teaching so as to weed out what is not the teaching, a concise statement of which is given below: (continued in URL)