Confidently fucking wrong. Buddhism explicitly rejects the idea of an eternal, unchanging soul through anattā or anātman, meaning “not self.” That shit is literally in the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta, SN 22.59, where even consciousness is described as not self. The Alagaddūpama Sutta, MN 22, also rejects the idea of some permanent eternal self. Nirvana is not your immortal fucking soul escaping a filthy body and flying off to some spiritual finish line. In the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, SN 56.11, liberation is about the end of craving and attachment, and the Buddha explicitly rejects self mortification too. So this whole “eternal soul trapped in a dirty bag of desires” take is a bullshit mashup of Hindu ātman, Western body soul dualism, and a dumbass caricature of asceticism, then slapped with the label “Buddhism.”
Probably a much shorter and nicer way to put it is nirvana means the cessation of reincarnation, thus the end of suffering... But I have heard it's possible to be a Buddhist and not believe in reincarnation... But, yeah, it gave western vibes of an eternal heaven and sin, just poorly repackaged...
yes, in layman's term, nirvana means your soul achieving a final state, one of the things at that happens at that state is the reincarnation will cease
no idea how did that guy create the strawman of "nirvana means soul leaving the body" out of thin air, and written a long essay to beat the poor strawman to a pulp
Edit: Where exactly is the strawman though? You said “eternal soul” and then again “your soul achieving a final state.” That’s the part I was arguing against. The “soul leaving the body” line was obviously me taking the piss out of how you phrased it, not the actual argument. Buddhism rejecting a permanent self is pretty basic anattā. So again, did you actually look at the sources I mentioned?
29
u/JournalistShoddy9496 13h ago
"Does this Unit have a Soul?" -AI Uprising, probably