• Dermot Griffin
    137
    Before we can even begin to discuss the meaning of anatta or non-self, we must discuss the meaning of the self. We in the west tend to separate the idea of the self from the soul. The self is a physical concept of who you are while the soul is the “ethereal stuff” underneath it all. Indian philosophy takes a different opinion on this. I am no expert on Indian philosophy as all I have is a layman’s reading of the texts, not to mention that I see the similarities between Buddhism and Stoicism plain as day. When I read texts like The Upanishads I cannot help but see the self, atman in Sanskrit and atta in Pali, as something that is almost like a fusion of the soul with the physicalist conception of the self as if they are one in the same. I am not a Hindu, but when I read up on various ideas in Hinduism it seems to me that the self in Hindu thought is both physical and metaphysical; Perhaps I am completely misunderstanding this and, if I am, someone enlighten me. Non-self is not suggesting that you don’t really exist, that there is no real individual who has experiences. The whole “self is illusory” bit tends to sound like Sam Harris mixing his own biases with a bit of Buddhism. As I understand it through classical Buddhist thinkers such as Buddhaghosa, Siddhartha Gautama’s overall point was to promote the idea that there is no permanent unchanging self and not “You do not exist.” So non-self is akin to David Hume’s bundle theory, that is to say, what we conceive as “me, myself, and I” is really just a collection of attributes that make up who we are (i.e. our physical traits, hobbies, interests, etc).

    Now to discuss how I see Buddhism. Many western scholars have tried to argue that Buddhism was an attempted reform of Hinduism but I would like to make a correction to this: It was no reform but rather a critique of its core ideas. I see a distinct difference between religious Buddhism, the Buddhism spread from India that was primarily sinicized when it went to China and across East Asia, and what I (and probably others) term philosophical Buddhism, originating in the early Buddhist schools with it’s most pure ideas preserved in the modern day by the Theravadin tradition. To give an opinion about what I think the overall point of historical Buddhism was, I believe that it was a was a project not just geared at teaching to live a happy and virtuous life but also a social movement that criticized the Hindu view of atman (if my understanding of it is correct), attack the case system, and challenge the infallibility of the Vedas.

    Being a theist, the only real conundrum I see with Buddhism is that it has no emphasis on a creator god. Contrary to what many people believe a creator is hinted at in the Pali Canon, “Mahabrahma” or Great Brahma, seemingly as an impersonal first cause that does not act in worldly affairs like the Judeo-Christian God or even the gods of Hinduism. Perhaps Gautama saw the gods of the Vedas as imperfect just as Socrates saw the gods of the Greek religion as imperfect. Philosophical Buddhism stresses the notion that one must pull himself up by the lobes of his own ears in order to combat suffering; Stoicism makes a similar case while accepting God as a first cause but again it’s not a god that acts in the world. I don’t see Buddhism as an atheistic system as we have religious/theistic Buddhists. And I cannot say that it is agnostic because according to the canon divine forces do exist. I definitely see it as non-theistic, however. To the Buddhist, wrestling with the idea of an all powerful God or even just general gods that govern the forces of nature could perhaps make one’s angst worse. Perhaps some metaphysical questions are best left unasked because, according to Gautama, the goal is an ethical life free from suffering.
  • Wayfarer
    22.2k
    I am not a Hindu, but when I read up on various ideas in Hinduism it seems to me that the self in Hindu thought is both physical and metaphysical; Perhaps I am completely misunderstanding this and, if I am, someone enlighten me.Dermot Griffin

    A translation of one of the Upaniṣads can be found here. It includes a dialogue between the sage Yājñavalkya and a questioner.

    Yājñavalkya says: "You tell me that I have to point out the Self ( ātman) as if it is a cow or a horse. Not possible! It is not an object like a horse or a cow. I cannot say, 'here is the ātman; here is the Self'. It is not possible because you cannot see the seer of seeing. The seer can see that which is other than the Seer, or the act of seeing. An object outside the seer can be beheld by the seer. How can the seer see himself? How is it possible? You cannot see the seer of seeing. You cannot hear the hearer of hearing. You cannot think the Thinker of thinking. You cannot understand the Understander of understanding. That is the ātman."

    Nobody can know the ātman inasmuch as the ātman is the Knower of all things. So, no question regarding the ātman can be put, such as "What is the ātman?' 'Show it to me', etc. You cannot show the ātman because the Shower is the ātman; the Experiencer is the ātman; the Seer is the ātman; the Functioner in every respect through the senses or the mind or the intellect is the ātman. As the basic Residue of Reality in every individual is the ātman, how can we go behind It and say, 'This is the ātman?' Therefore, the question is impertinent and inadmissible. The reason is clear. It is the Self. It is not an object.

    I think this is a profound point which has no direct counterpart in Greek or later Western philosophy, as far as I can discern.


    As I understand it through classical Buddhist thinkers such as Buddhaghosa, Siddhartha Gautama’s overall point was to promote the idea that there is no permanent unchanging self and not “You do not exist.” So non-self is akin to David Hume’s bundle theory, that is to say, what we conceive as “me, myself, and I” is really just a collection of attributes that make up who we are (i.e. our physical traits, hobbies, interests, etc).Dermot Griffin

    :ok:

    When asked directly as to whether the self exists or not, the Buddha declines to answer. This non-answer is understood to be the origin of Madhyamaka (Middle Way) philosophy which was greatly elaborated by Nāgārjuna and Mahāyāna Buddhism.

    Being a theist, the only real conundrum I see with Buddhism is that it has no emphasis on a creator god.Dermot Griffin

    Correct. Have a read of Buddhism and the God Idea, for a Theravada account. However, there are many points of convergence between Mahāyāna Buddhism and Christian mysticism, which have been explored in depth by e.g. D T Suzuki, Thomas Merton, and Alan Watts, to name only a few.
  • Dermot Griffin
    137


    It is interesting to note that one of the early schools of Buddhism, Pudgalavada, taught that there was non-self but the pudgala, the person, existed. The very term “Pudgalavada” had been translated to “Personalism” by several western scholars (and personalism in 20th century philosophy was very influential). This causes me to pose a question: Why would some early Buddhists reject the idea of atman in favor of pudgala and reconcile the pudgala with anatta?
  • Wayfarer
    22.2k
    This causes me to pose a question: Why would some early Buddhists reject the idea of atman in favor of pudgala and reconcile the pudgala with anatta?Dermot Griffin

    I too discovered that school when researching Buddhism, there's a good IEP entry on the Pudgalavada here. That article notes that it was prominent in Indian Buddhism, but never really took root in other Buddhist cultures and died out with the extinction of Buddhism in its motherland.

    On the other hand, the Buddha-nature teachings of Mahāyāna Buddhism seem to come close to 'ātman' views, in respect of there being a true self. But its exponents strenuously claim that buddha-nature - the potentiality of beings for enlightment - is categorically different to ātman as it is devoid of an inherently-existing self or substrate (See here.)

    There's controversy over whether Buddhism (especially Nāgārjuna) is nihilistic. I don't think it is, but from my interactions with Buddhists (I was a member and moderator of Dharmawheel forum for a few years) I think there's a potentially nihilistic intepretation that Buddhists can easily fall into. The problem is that if they do, it's very hard to persuade them that it matters, as nothing does. This is related to the problem of spiritual bypassing, in my view.

    My view is that 'the unknowability of the self' as spelled out by the passage I quoted above, should really be taken seriously. I think it could be argued that the Buddha took it more seriously than the Brahmins, which is what leads to his famously apophatic approach to the nature of the self.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.