Buddhist Souls – Why Ken’s Wrong

Buddhist souls seem to oddly preoccupy Ken Wheeler. Find out why his views insult Buddhist doctrine and how we know the Angry Photographer’s ideas would offend the historical Buddha.

Authoritative Buddhist scholar Walpola Rahula Thero wrote this about Buddhist views on the human soul,”Buddhism stands unique in the history of human thought in denying the existence of such a Soul, Self or Atman. According to the teaching of the Buddha, the idea of self is an imaginary false belief which has no corresponding reality, and it produces harmful thoughts of ‘me’ and ‘mine.'”

The American-born professor of Asian history and religion, C. Pierce Salguero writes that, “Many other traditions have concluded that the self is an awareness, a consciousness, a soul, God or some other entity that ecompasses or transcends or witnesses all the phenomena we experience. Buddhism differs from these by concluding that there is no self at all.”

Nanatiloka Mahathera, a German-born Buddhist monk and scholar wrote that, “The Buddha teaches that what we call ego, self, soul, personality, etc. are merely conventional terms not referring to any real independent entity.”

Claims He’s World’s Foremost Authority on Anatta (No-Soul)

The Angry Photographer claims to be the world’s foremost authority on the term anatta, the Pali word for “no soul.” It’s one of many subjects on which he sets himself up as a fake expert while viewing the consensus among genuine scholars as a conspiracy.

In his On Anatta/Anatman in Fact and Doctrine, Ken Wheeler poses the question “If the Buddha disbelieved in an atman (soul) why did he not deny the atman unambiguously? There is no such denial.”

Well, as a matter of fact, there is. It’s in the Anatta Lakkhana Sutta (SN 22:59; III 66-69), one of the earliest Buddhist scriptures we have. In fact, it’s the second sermon the Buddha ever preached, and it explains the term anatta (no soul).

“This is Not Mine, This I am Not, This is Not My Soul.”

In this passage, the Buddha says, “Whatever consciousness there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my soul (atta).’” (Emphasis added)

The Theoria Apophasis host dismisses this scripture, saying that it excludes what he calls the “higher consciousness” or the “higher self” as taught by Plato. However, the text itself shows that this is a logical fallacy, since the Buddha goes out of his way to exclude any sort of subtle, external, superior or distant consciousness. He emphasizes, “all consciousness.”

If the Theoria Apophasis host wants to make the extraordinary claim, contrary to conventional Buddhist doctrine, that Buddha explicitly taught the existence of an immortal soul, he needs to cite a passage where the historical Siddhartha Gotama says that. It’s not up to his critics to prove the opposite.

Why Did the Buddha Never Affirm an Immortal Soul?

Asking others to prove a negative sets impossible expectations and doesn’t validate Ken Wheeler’s assertion. In the context of the above citations on consciousness and personality, it’s much more valid to ask why the Buddha never affirmed an immortal soul if, as Ken Wheeler insists, its existence was one of his core beliefs.

Contrary to what Ken Wheeler tries to argue, the Buddha didn’t teach any sort of permanent consciousness or higher self. In short, according to scripture, he taught that we have no soul.

In the above verse, the Buddha specifically uses the Pali word atta for soul. This is the root of the Pali word anatta (no-soul) on which the Angry Photographer sets himself up as a fake expert.

In His Denial, Buddha Uses the Pali Word Atta for Soul

Readers familiar with the Buddhist belief in reincarnation may be wondering how this no-soul teaching relates to the idea of rebirth in a new body after death. The Buddha noticed two schools of thought on what happens when we die back in his day.

The first view was annihilism. In this view, we simply cease to exist when we die and there is no consciousness beyond the grave.

The other extreme was eternalism, the view that we have an eternal soul. Followers of this school of thought believed that the soul is endlessly reborn in a cycle of karma and reincarnation.

Attachments Cause Cycle of Birth, Death and Rebirth

Buddha rejected both views in favour of what he called paticca-samuppada, which is usually translated as “dependent arising.” He taught that twelve attachments cause the cycle of birth, death and rebirth.

These attachments are like links in a chain. They include ignorance, mental formations, consciousness, name and form, the senses, contact, feeling, craving, clinging, becoming, birth, and aging and death.

As in so many things, the Buddha taught a middle way between an absolute end and an immortal soul. According to Buddha, our attachments are what reincarnates, which is why it’s essential to work toward releasing these clingings rather than wasting time and effort arguing about a hypothetical soul.

Buddha Maintained “Noble Silence” on Topics Like the Soul

So, the Buddha rarely said anything about these topics one way or the other. The Culamalunkya Sutta is one of the oldest and most authentic Buddhist scriptures we have. It’s another one of those original, authentic sources on which Ken Wheeler brags about being such an expert.

Because he viewed these arguments as pointless, the Buddha maintained what his followers called the “Noble Silence” about certain topics, particularly the afterlife. He felt that thinking about them was a pointless distraction, and that arguing about them was counterproductive.

In this sutta, the Buddha says, “The soul is the same as the body’ — I have left undeclared. ‘The soul is one thing and the body another’ — I have left undeclared.

“‘The Soul Is the Same as the Body’ I Have Left Undeclared”

“After death a Tathagata (one who has become enlightened) exists’ — I have left undeclared. ‘After death a Tathagata does not exist’ — I have left undeclared. After death a Tathagata both exists and does not exist’ — I have left undeclared. ‘After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist’ — I have left undeclared.

“Why have I left that undeclared? Because it is unbeneficial, it does not belong to the fundamentals of the spiritual life, it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have left it undeclared.”

These questions, including the nature of the soul and life after death, are simply not the Buddha’s priority. They’re distractions and they cause pointless arguments. Buddha wanted his followers to ignore them, and to focus on his moral code, the Eightfold Path.

Questions About the Soul Cause Pointless Arguments

Buddhism aside, the Angry Photographer is very determined to convince others of his own views on an immortal soul and the afterlife. He’s especially fond of a radio analogy to explain his spiritual paradigm.

For the Theoria Apophasis host, the experience of radio consists of the broadcast, the receiver and the signal. A radio receiver alone can’t be the broadcast, because in the absence of the signal, the receiver can offer only static.

The signal, of course, represents our immortal soul, which animates our bodies (receivers). The signal continues even if the batteries in our receiver go dead or if the receiver breaks down.

Radio Analogy, Signal Represents Our Immortal Soul

So it takes both a signal and a receiver to make a broadcast. Ken Wheeler says they’re “consubstantial.” He thinks our body and our soul are consubstantial, too.

Consubstantial is a term from Christian theology. It means “of one substance,” which is precisely the opposite of what the Angry Photographer means when he misuses this word.

Consubstantiality refers to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all being one God rather than to the bodies and souls of everyday people. More to the point, it has nothing to do with Buddha’s teachings.

Consubstantiality Has Nothing to Do with Buddhism

Philosophers view reasoning by analogy alone as a logical fallacy. For example, one of Kentucky Ken’s heroes is Plato.

Plato had this to say about arguments like the Angry Photographer’s comparing the human soul to a transistor radio. “Arguments that make their point by means of similarities are impostors, and, unless you are on your guard against them, will quite readily deceive you.”

So, beyond the issue of consubstantiality, simply drawing a comparison between a radio broadcast and the human soul is invalid. Before the Theoria Apophasis host can draw such an analogy, he first has to provide tangible evidence that the two things are related in some way.

Declares All Religious Debates Must Be Sola Scriptura

Since the Angry Photographer is dead wrong about Buddhist scriptures, there’s an even more ironic logical fallacy underlying his claims. He arbitrarily decrees that all religious debates must be Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is a Latin term coined by Martin Luther during the Protestant Reformation. To overcome the corruption he thought was plaguing the Roman Catholic Church at that time, he insisted that all doctrinal claims be justified based on scripture from the Bible, and not appeals to church authority.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is by no means universal within Christianity. If theologians adopted this stance in the literal way the Theoria Apophasis host advocates, they would have nothing to discuss with each other.

Sola Scriptura Has Nothing to Do with Buddhism Either

More to the point, Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with Hinduism or Buddhism. In Ancient India, religious scholars valued word-of-mouth above the written word for sacred teachings.

So Buddha’s sermons remained undocumented for at least 500 years after his death. Neither Buddha nor any of his disciples wrote anything down during his lifetime.

The Buddha himself specifically opposes Ken Wheeler’s Sola Scriptura approach in the Kalama Sutta. This is yet another one of those Pali scriptures about which Kentucky Ken claims to be such an authority.

Buddha Himself Opposes Sola Scriptura Approach

Asked how to distinguish between true and false doctrines, the Buddha cautions his followers as follows. “Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture.”

The Buddha called on Buddhists to think for themselves rather than taking the Angry Photographer’s Sola Scriptura approach. He asks, “What do you think, Kalamas? Does delusion appear in a man for his benefit or harm?” His followers reply “For his harm, venerable sir.” 

We’ve seen the symptoms of grandiose delusional disorder include falsely believing one is an unrecognized genius and/or one has made one or more important discoveries. We’ll let readers draw their own conclusions.

“Any Fool in Error Can Find a Verse of Scripture”

There’s a saying attributed to Shakespeare that goes, “Any fool in error can find a verse of scripture to back him up.” The Angry Photographer is living proof of this.

In addition to Sola Scriptura, Kentucky Ken also makes another self-serving stipulation. He sets an impossible standard of proof for his critics by insisting that any debate be limited to his own narrow definition of “original Buddhism.”

In other words, he seeks to restrict any discussion of Buddhism to sayings attributed directly to the Buddha in the scriptures called the Nikayas. He has an ulterior motive for imposing this limitation as well.

Maneuver to Rule Out Scripture Denying Soul’s Existence

This constraint enables him to duck any and all later commentary by other authors recorded in ancient Buddhist scripture. It’s a maneuver to rule out the most cited Buddhist scriptural passage denying the soul’s existence, which goes like this.

“For suffering is, but no sufferer. Not the doer, but certainly the deed is found. Peace is, but not the appeased one. The way is, but the walker is not found.”

This was written by the revered scholar Buddhaghosa, who organized and systematized the teachings found in the Buddha’s many dialogues. Buddhaghosa is remembered for his scrupulous research and authenticity.

Like Refusing to Read the Epistles, Talmud or Hadiths

The Angry Photographer also uses his originality restriction to avoid discussing passages in the vast body of commentary in the Pali Canon called the Abhidamma. This is roughly the equivalent of a Christian scholar refusing to even read any of the epistles in the New Testament, a Jewish scholar dismissing the entire Talmud out of hand, or a Muslim scholar denying any relevance to the Hadiths.

When all else fails, the YouTuber behind Theoria Apophasis routinely resorts to cherry-picking and mistranslation to impose his dogma onto Buddhist and other ancient writings. One of his more egregious distortions is to mistranslate the Pali word citta – which, according to the Pali Text Society, means “heart” – as “soul.”

Citta can mean the organ in our chest. More often, as in English, it also symbolizes love, hope or compassion, as in “Don’t be so mean, have a heart,” or “Keep going, don’t lose heart.”

Citta Symbolizes Love, Hope or Compassion

The word citta can also refer to some aspects of our mind. Again, it works like in English when we say, “I can recite that poem off-by-heart,” or, “I believe in democracy with all my heart.”

Ken Wheeler exploits the metaphorical meanings of citta to misquote the Buddha and rationalize his claims about the immortal soul. He manipulates texts in which the word is meant to convey love, hope or compassion to force them into meaning things they don’t.

Here’s one of countless cases in point. In one of the Buddha’s discourses the Angry Photographer likes to brag about, he says, “This is immortality, the liberated heart which does not cling.” (MN 2.265) Kentucky Ken pulls a scriptural switcheroo to render this as, “This is immortality, that being the liberated soul which does not cling (after anything).”

Pulls a Spiritual Switcheroo, Changing “Heart” to “Soul”

Ken Wheeler incorrectly changes “liberated heart,” as in unfettered compassion, to “liberated soul.” Leaving nothing to chance, he attaches his own, invented, interpretive phrase to the end. This warped “translation” bastardizes the original meaning of the text by interpolating his false claim about the immortal soul in Buddhism.

In his more recent paper entitled A Primer on the Theurgy of Liberation as Against “Meditation” Dogma, the Theoria Apophasis host uses a different mistranslation of precisely the same passage. Here it reads, “This is immortality, that being the liberated mind/will (citta) which does not cling (after anything).”

In the same theurgy primer, the Angry Photographer cites the Pali phrase “Thitam cittam ajjhattam susanthitam suvimuttam.” Once again, he concocts his own idiosyncratic translation.

Concocts His Own Idiosyncratic Translations of Citta

In this case, he writes “With the will (citta) steadfast (upon itself) [this is] the very Soul, this is to be supremely steadfast, is to be thoroughly liberated.” The correct translation of this phrase is simply “upright heart, composed within, truly released.”

The Buddha is teaching that a righteous heart provides inner peace and a sense of freedom. So yet again, Kentucky Ken is mistranslating citta and inserting his own interpretive phrases trying to bend the text to his “will” (pun intended).

So, does the Pali word citta mean “soul,” “mind,” or “will”? These words aren’t synonyms, so it can’t mean all three things.

“A Word Means Just What I Choose it to Mean”

The answer is that in Ken Wheeler’s mind, like Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

Alice’s reply applies equally to Humpty Dumpty and Ken Wheeler when she says, “The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.” Neither of them pulls it off

He rarely mentions her name, but the Angry Photographer is latching onto the views of the discredited, eccentric scholar, Caroline Rhys-Davids. She earned the respect of her peers in the early 20th century for her early work translating several essential Pali texts.

Caroline Rhys-Davids Fell Prey to Spiritualism Fad

Tragically, Rhys-Davids’ son died in WWI and her husband, also a Buddhist scholar, passed away shortly after that in 1922. Traumatized by these losses, she fell prey to the spiritualism fad that was sweeping Britain at the time.

The celebrated scholar began taking part in seances, claimed to hear the voices of the dead, and believed her spirit could literally visit the Great Beyond by dreaming. For obvious reasons, these eccentric convictions led her to abandon the central Buddhist concept of anatta (no self/soul) in later life.

As a result, scholars view her later work as an incoherent embarrassment. Despite this, the YouTuber behind Theoria Apophasis embraces her more recent misinterpretations, not for their accuracy, but because she’s a fake expert who confirms his own prejudices.

Her Own Husband Contradicted Her Conclusions

We can see how far Caroline Rhys-Davids strayed from original Buddhist doctrine by going back to the following passage. Her own husband, Thomas William Rhys-Davids, wrote it forty years earlier.

“The position (of no-soul) is so absolute, so insisted on, so fundamental to the right understanding of primitive Buddhism, that it is essential that there be no mistake about it. There is no loophole, and the efforts to find one have always met with unswerving opposition, both in the pitakas (scriptures) themselves and in extracanonical texts.”

Leo Tolstoy explained, “A person who is afraid of death is one who has not lived his life properly and has broken the law of life.” Buddha taught that there were three poisons, delusion, ill-will and greed. As every post on this site shows, the Angry Photographer displays all three traits repeatedly. Buddhists would argue he has very bad karma as a result.

Revealing Comment – “Who Would Want That?”

The Theoria Apophasis host made a revealing comment in a recent video denouncing the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of anatta (no self/soul). He said, “Who would want that? It would be better to suffer a million transmigrations and a thousand mountains the size of Mount Everest.”

Whether or not the Buddha’s teachings, or any ideas, are desirable should have nothing to do with our decisions about believing them. This Freudian slip reveals that the Angry Photographer bases his worldview solely on what he wants to believe – in this case that he’s not going to die.

Ken Wheeler also espouses a worldview called perennialism. One of its key tenets is the existence of an immortal human soul.

“We Are Forced to Abandon the Doctrine of Anatta”

Even so, leading perennialists like Aldous Huxley had to concede that Buddhism didn’t conform to their views. In his book, The Perennial Philosophy, Huxley wrote, “To give a plausible answer to these questions in terms of anatta is so difficult that we are forced to abandon the doctrine.”

Ken Wheeler could simply accept, like Huxley, that the Buddha’s ideas differ from his own. Instead, Kentucky Ken resorts to misinterpretation of Buddhist scriptures while claiming to be the world’s foremost authority on anatta.

So, the Theoria Apophasis host is also a fake expert on perennialism. Even if he wasn’t, perennialism isn’t as widely accepted by scholars as it once once.

Perennialism Not as Widely Accepted as It Once Was

Philosopher Herman T. Katz published a devastating paper in 1978 refuting the claim that all religions stem from a common metaphysical root.

Katz made the case for respecting these cultural differences rather than shoehorning them into “perennial philosophy.” He explained the advantages, writing, “One is in a position to respect the richness of the experiential and conceptual data involved in this area of concern: ‘God’ can be ‘God’, ‘Brahman’ can be ‘Brahman’ and ‘Nirvana’ can be ‘Nirvana,’ without any reductionist attempt to equate ‘God’ with Brahman’, or ‘Brahman’ with ‘Nirvana.”‘

Ken Wheeler is entitled to believe anything he wants about the soul and the afterlife. Even so, he’s not entitled to put words in the Buddha’s mouth.

Not Entitled to Put Words in the Buddha’s Mouth

In the Bahuvediniya Sutta, Buddha explains to his trusted aid, Ananda. “If one does not approve another’s view, appreciating and accepting it, this kind of thing could happen and quarrels, fights, disputes and verbal fights would ensue. Therefore you should be united, open hearted, should co-operate like milk and water, and should look at each other with understanding and abide.”

Ken Wheeler has many ironic opinions. In this case, he tries to assert his dubious expertise about Buddhism by violating one of the Buddha’s most authentic and fundamental tenets. And yet, he persists.

Ken’s Evidence

On Anatta/Atman
Culamalunkya Sutta
Citta – Standard Translation from Pali Text Society Pali-English Dictionary
Unanswered Questions in Buddhism
Language, Epistemology and Mysticism

Published by David Morton Rintoul

I'm a freelance writer and commercial blogger delivering content services to selective business to business marketing clients. I have extensive experience in content creation, technical writing and training, working as a consultant and later in management roles with many of Canada's most successful organizations. Specialties: Content Marketing, Social Media, Technical Writing, Training and Development

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: