Those who believe in the existence of a soul are not in a position to explain what and where it is. The Buddha's advice is not to waste our time over this unnecessary speculation and devote our time to strive for our salvation. When we have attained perfection then we will be able to realize whether there is a soul or not. A wandering ascetic named Vacchagotta asked the Buddha whether there was an Atman (self) or not. The story is as follows:

Vacchagotta comes to the Buddha and asks:

'Venerable Gotama, is there an Atman(soul)?

The Buddha is silent.

'Then Venerable Gotama, is there no Atman(soul)?

Again the Buddha is silent.

Vacchagotta gets up and goes away.

After the ascetic has left, Ananda asks the Buddha why He did not answer Vacchagotta's question. The Buddha explains His position:

'Ananda, when asked by Vacchagotta, the Wanderer: 'Is there a Self?, if I had answered: 'There is a Self'. Then, Ananda, that would be siding with those recluses and brahmanas who hold the eternalist theory (sassata-vada).'

'And Ananda, when asked by the Wanderer: 'Is there no Self?, if I had answered: 'There is no Self', then that would be siding with those recluses and brahmanas who hold the annihilationist theory (uccedavada)'.

'Again, Ananda, when asked by Vacchagotta: 'Is there a Self? If I had answered: 'There is a Self', would that be in accordance with my knowledge that all dhammas are without Self?

'Surely not, Sir.'

'And again, Ananda, when asked by the Wanderer: 'Is there no Self?', if I had answered: 'There is no Self', then that would have created a greater confusion in the already confused Vacchagotta. For he would have thought: Formerly indeed I had an Atman (Self), but now I haven't got one.' (Samyutta Nikaya).

The Buddha regarded soul-speculation as useless and illusory. He once said, 'Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existing entities. Their heart still clings to Self. They are anxious about heaven and they seek the pleasure of Self in heaven. Thus they cannot see the bliss of righteousness and the immortality of truth.' Selfish ideas appear in man's mind due to his conception of Self and craving for existence.

Anatta: The Teaching of No-Soul

The Buddha countered all soul-theory and soul-speculation with His Anatta doctrine. Anatta is translated under various labels: No-soul, No-self, egolessness, and soullessness.

To understand the Anatta doctrine, one must understand that the eternal soul theory _ 'I have a soul' _ and the material theory _ 'I have no soul' _are both obstacles to self-realization or salvation. They arise from the misconception 'I AM'. Hence, to understand the Anatta doctrine, one must not cling to any opinion or views on soul-theory; rather, one must try to see things objectively as they are and without any mental projections. One must learn to see the so-called 'I' or Sour or Self for what it really is : merely a combination of changing forces. This requires some analytical explanation.

The Buddha taught that what we conceive as something eternal within us, is merely a combination of physical and mental aggregates or forces (pancakkhandha), made up of body or matter (rupakkhandha), sensation (vedanakkhandha), perception (sannakkhandha), mental formations (samkharakkhandha) and consciousness (vinnanakkhandha). These forces are working together in a flux of momentary change; they are never the same for two consecutive moments. They are the component forces of the psycho-physical life. When the Buddha analyzed the psycho-physical life, He found only these five aggregates or forces. He did not find any eternal soul. However, many people still have the misconception that the soul is the consciousness. The Buddha declared in unequivocal terms that consciousness depends on matter, sensation, perception and mental formations and that is cannot exist independently of them.

The Buddha said, 'The body, O monks, is not the Self. Sensation is not the Self. Perception is not the Self. The mental constructions are not the Self. And neither is consciousness the Self. Perceiving this, O monks, the disciple sets no value on the body, or on sensation, or on perception, or on mental constructions, or on consciousness. Setting no value of them, he becomes free of passions and he is liberated. The knowledge of liberation arises there within him. And then he knows that he has done what has to be done, that he has lived the holy life, that he is no longer becoming this or that, that his rebirth is destroyed.' (Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta).

The Anatta doctrine of the Buddha is over 2500 years old. Today the thought current of the modern scientific world is flowing towards the Buddha's Teaching of Anatta or No-Soul. In the eyes of the modern scientists, man is merely a bundle of ever-changing sensations. Modern physicists say that the apparently solid universe is not, in reality, composed of solid substance at all, but actually a flux of energy. The modern physicist sees the whole universe as a process of transformation of various forces of which man is a mere part. The Buddha was the first to realize this.

Well now that is a curious theory, but some scientific minded people have told me that "memories" are stored "in the brain" and if they are-- then an accurate copy of the brain and all its wrinkles etc. should transfer the memories just like making a copy of a CD or DVD.

I don't buy that memories are "in the brain" so I agree with you that they could not really be transferred especially the emotional segments.

But in looking at my own memories, I find many of them to be vague and fading... I don't have accurate memories of my childhood in detail, just the highlights and the emotional traumatic or enlightening ones. Memories are very personal to the 'person' or the original 'observer' what ever that is.

This will be my first post here, hello all. Your wording - that the clone "THINKS" he or she is YOU bears your answers. I don't believe in cloning, nonetheless yr qn is interesting.

1. Is the clone human?

Well, you can look at 'human' as a made up word, in mankind's attempt to separate or group himself from other living things, in a way that denies being an animal or even possessing animalistic tendencies. I know of 'humans' who could pass for animals. I think mankind tends to doubt or conciously refuse to contend that 'animals' can share with us come characteristics which we very much see as 'human': compassion; saving anothers life; fear; etc. Therefore if the clone possesses characteristics which are completely opposite to those which we 'humans' label as 'animal' i.e. if it possesses characteristics that we as non-animals can identify with, I would pass it for being human.

2. Does your clone have a soul.

If i've passed him for being human, and if he "THINKS" he is me, then by virtue of his being able to think, yes I think he has a soul. Having a soul in a way that comprehends thought, is consistent with being alive. If he thinks he is me however, he is only going to ACT like me. This means that he will make it his business to decide to act like me, whether he gets it right or wrong which is a thing i find problematic -- We don't generally tend to think we are us; we just know we are. Taking this to your next question,

3. Is that clones soul your soul?

No. He thinks separately and decides what he wants. In fact, he thinks and does things without my knowledge: he acts like me. How on earth would i know what is going through his head in times when he is not 'acting' like me? Although me and him look very similar, it appears he has a brain of his own which harbours his independent thought. Supposing I died; would he die or would he act like he is dead?

mingle121,

Welcome to Mingle! I am honored that you picked my thread for you first post.

I liked your answer to the question: "Is that clones soul your soul?"

It addresses my point of one of the reasons a clone is not you. It is because of his point of view. He is his own thinking center. He thinks differently and from a different point of view than you.

Something just occurred to me.

So you have got the first step covered, getting yourself cloned. Say you have clone now.

Does it have a soul? Your soul? I think our perspective is ego-centric. Why can't I have the soul of the clone? It's identical to me, at one point, so to say that he has my soul is just as individualismist as to say I have his.

Whoa. If soul is something that is not material and yet enters the body or some other way assiciates itself with our bodies, then yes, the clone can have a soul, acquired independently of me, the owner of the original body.

If the soul is the function of brain activity, then yes, he has its own body and soul, much like I do.

If the soul is a god-given thing, then we don't know how many of us will contiue being a soul-carrying member of the human race and how many won't.