The Buddhist view of self

[Gavin]

I would like to discuss the buddhist idea that there is no permanent, identifiable, distinctive "self", but that human beings are simply streams of conscienceness, similar to the flame on a candle burning down the wick. Buddhists say that impermanence characterizes a human being.

Is this idea logically tenable? Thoughts?

[Peter Kirby]

I am not nearly familiar enough with Buddhism, so I would want to be careful about not mixing in modern Western Buddhism or popular science into the teachings of the actual religion ... where can I read about the ancient Buddhist teaching on the self?

On the level of ideas, though, I had great fun many years ago discovering the book _The Mind's I_ by Hofstadter and Dennett. It is pure philosophical cotton candy and is highly recommended if you'd like to clarify to yourself your concept of 'self'.

There are many different intuition pumps one can use on the subject. One is the fantasy that nanotechnology somehow has developed such that it is possible to analyze a human being down to the molecular level and create an identical replica elsewhere--on the other side of the room or on the other side of the galaxy, it matters not. If there are now two copies of your body, which is 'you'? I would guess that the older body is 'mine' because it is the one with all the same stuff. So presumably this other body is an imposter. But what if this was billed as a teleportation device? What if my entire body was reassembled on the other side of the room with all the same physical parts, after being disassembled? If the copy was an imposter, why wouldn't the recreation be an imposter?

When you ponder things like this, one wonders if the concept of a single indivisible and enduring 'self' that is above and beyond our body and memory may be illusory.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Gavin]

Hello Peter!

Thank you for your response.

I am not nearly familiar enough with Buddhism, so I would want to be careful about not mixing in modern Western Buddhism or popular science into the teachings of the actual religion ... where can I read about the ancient Buddhist teaching on the self?

Well, for starters, try here (http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/noself.html).

As for your other comments, I don't think the idea of possessing an eternal soul dictates that there are "two copies" of human beings. I think the idea is that there is a part of our being which is spiritual and eternal and invisible.

Blessings,
Gavin

[Peter Kirby]

Hi Gavin,

Thanks for the link.

I wasn't trying to suggest that spirit-belief presupposes the existence of two copies of a human being. Most spirit believers (as far as I know) think that the spirit is a non-physical part of a human being where lies consciousness and responsibility. My intuition pump concerned the question of what would happen if technology allowed someone to make a perfect replica of a human body.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Gavin]

Peter,
Hi Gavin,

Thanks for the link.

I wasn't trying to suggest that spirit-belief presupposes the existence of two copies of a human being. Most spirit believers (as far as I know) think that the spirit is a non-physical part of a human being where lies consciousness and responsibility. My intuition pump concerned the question of what would happen if technology allowed someone to make a perfect replica of a human body.

best,
Peter Kirby
Whoops, sorry, I must have misunderstood.

[ACFaith.Com]

03-13-2003 @ 03:24 AM
Peter Kirby:

Hi Gavin,

Thanks for the link.

I wasn't trying to suggest that spirit-belief presupposes the existence of two copies of a human being. Most spirit believers (as far as I know) think that the spirit is a non-physical part of a human being where lies consciousness and responsibility. My intuition pump concerned the question of what would happen if technology allowed someone to make a perfect replica of a human body.

best,
Peter Kirby

Convert energy into an exact replica of a human now in existence? That is the science fair project I've always been looking for!

Interesting question, by the way.

Vinnie

[Jin-Roh]

I have a Buddhist friend named Savaat. He comes straight out of cambodia and he used to wear the orange robes.

He's a real Buddhist, not one of the phony "pop-culture" Buddhists (Richard Gere) out there. I look forward to talking with him, I hope to share a little bit of Jesus with him in the future.

[Ryokan]

I think it is tenable. There reasoning, as far a they like to go with reasoning, which isn't very, is that each of us have experiences. Consciousness is a flow of experience. These experiences are individual moments in time, drops in the river of "I", waves in the ocean. Each is different. Each one of these experiences has memories as part of it that give the appearance that it is part of a nique whole seperate from everything else. Buddhist say that isn't true, and that while they are part of something, it is the whole of everything, not you. You are a line drawn in the sand by your memories in each experience.

[Woman]

Jin-Roh

He's a real Buddhist, not one of the phony "pop-culture" Buddhists (Richard Gere) out there. I look forward to talking with him, I hope to share a little bit of Jesus with him in the future.

I'd be curious as to how you know he's a "real Buddhist" and why you are sure that a Cambodian would necessarily be more knowlegeable about or authentic in their beliefs than a westerner.

Don't get me wrong. I have NO interest in what any celebrity is currently "into." In general, they are certainly not good role models for anything except fashion and that's debatable. :teeth:

Sometimes a person who is raised in a certain tradition is less knowlegable about it than a convert. They may never have questioned or studied. That is especially true of traditions where there is a strong cultural element. For instance, an American evangelical protestant may find that the Finnish Lutheran holds very different beliefs though both are Christian. The Catholics in Ireland and those in Mexico would find that even their religious holidays are different.

Buddhism has many different paths, but all have the same goal. Different kinds of teachings include Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, Zen, and Lamaistic. Also remember that just as what it means to be a Christian today is very different than what is was in the middle ages, a Buddhist today lives differently than its founder did 2500 years ago.

And finally, Buddhism is technically a philosophy not a religion.

[yougotstachill]

"The mind is very hard to see
and find, it falls on what it wants.
One who’s wise should guard the mind,
a guarded mind brings happiness."

Explanation: The mind moves about so fast it is difficult to get hold of it fully. It is swift. It has a way of focusing upon whatever it likes. It is good and of immense advantage to tame the mind. The tame mind brings bliss.

[shunyadragon]

I would like to discuss the buddhist idea that there is no permanent, identifiable, distinctive "self", but that human beings are simply streams of conscienceness, similar to the flame on a candle burning down the wick. Buddhists say that impermanence characterizes a human being.

Is this idea logically tenable? Thoughts?The problem with this is from the western point of view we want to define the undefinable. The reality is that all the human efforts to define the soul and its journey is not any more productive than a hampster on a treadmile. It's like asking how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.

In the teachings of Buddha we enter the river and beyond that nothing is absolutely known. You can chose to enter the river before you die and become aware of the river, or wait until you die and enter it unenlightened and unaware. Buddhist teachings in the original languages were by analogy and metaphor and there was no effort to make such definitive statements defining that which cannot be defined. This one of the reasons that even reincarnation itself is not really an original belief, where the journey through many worlds became a vain immagining. It is like the concepts of heaven, hell and purgatory, which are more cultural human efforts to define the undefinable to resolve peoples fears of what happens after we die.

[shunyadragon]

Jin-Roh



I'd be curious as to how you know he's a "real Buddhist" and why you are sure that a Cambodian would necessarily be more knowlegeable about or authentic in their beliefs than a westerner.

Don't get me wrong. I have NO interest in what any celebrity is currently "into." In general, they are certainly not good role models for anything except fashion and that's debatable. :teeth:

Sometimes a person who is raised in a certain tradition is less knowlegable about it than a convert. They may never have questioned or studied. That is especially true of traditions where there is a strong cultural element. For instance, an American evangelical protestant may find that the Finnish Lutheran holds very different beliefs though both are Christian. The Catholics in Ireland and those in Mexico would find that even their religious holidays are different.

Buddhism has many different paths, but all have the same goal. Different kinds of teachings include Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, Zen, and Lamaistic. Also remember that just as what it means to be a Christian today is very different than what is was in the middle ages, a Buddhist today lives differently than its founder did 2500 years ago.

And finally, Buddhism is technically a philosophy not a religion.I agree very much with your first statements, but the last does not work. Most Buddhists would likely say Buddhism is not technically anything. Buddhism is just as much a religion as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It teaches a spiritual way of life that relates to the journey after death, it has scripture and ritual, whether real or imagined. There should not be stigma on the word religion as to what is and is not a religion.

Philosophy is in reality far different. Aristotle. Plato, Descartes and Popper are examples of philosophers or thinkers, who contemplated on the nature of existence, and offered debate and dialogue concerning understanding the nature of being human and existence.

[Magdalenbrother]

I agree very much with your first statements, but the last does not work. Most Buddhists would likely say Buddhism is not technically anything. Buddhism is just as much a religion as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It teaches a spiritual way of life that relates to the journey after death, it has scripture and ritual, whether real or imagined. There should not be stigma on the word religion as to what is and is not a religion.

It really depends on one's definition of "religion". If religion is what you describe: "a spiritual way of life that relates to the journey after death, which has scripture and ritual, whether real or imagined", then Buddhism is apparently a religion.

I could challenge this definition on several grounds, but because this is not a thread on the exact nature of religion I will leave it at that.

Is Buddhism focused on the journey after death? This is debatable...Don't forget that reincarnation is one of central tenets of Buddhism. The journey is mostly here on earth, rather than in immaterial realms of darkness or light.

Philosophy is in reality far different. Aristotle. Plato, Descartes and Popper are examples of philosophers or thinkers, who contemplated on the nature of existence, and offered debate and dialogue concerning understanding the nature of being human and existence.

This is a Western approach to philosophy. I could say, adopting a less ethnocentric and historically narrow* definition of philosophy (can one do that? Is not the word "philosphy an exlusive product of the West to start with?), that "philosophy" is a spiritual path aiming at elucidating the great questions of the human condition that is based on eminently rational considerations and requiring active thinking and critical observation of its followers. In order to attain greater lucidity of mind, the philosopher may engage in what looks like religious rituals of worship and prayer, but in fact these rituals and prayers are not religious at all but therapeutic and strictly utilitarian.

Buddhism could be a philosophy in that sense.

*Historically narrow because the word "philosophy" was apparently invented by the divine Pythagoras in the first place. Now, what his followers did, the way they lived, does not correspond to your description of a purely intellectual and individual quest.

I really see no fundamental difference between the "stream of consciousness" and a more conventional self/soul, except that the term "stream of consciousness" insists on the inherently changeable nature of the content of the self/soul. But since the "stream of consciousness" persists after death, what is the difference with the concept of soul?

The difference seems to reside in the concept of reincarnation, a process in which memories of a previous personality become unavailable to the new manifestation of mind.

One of the most luminous illustrations of anatta and reincarnation is this authentic anecdote, related by a Peruvian friend who is a journalist and writer:

(One day, as my friend was busy writing an article at his desk, his four-year old daughter asked him:)

-Papa, es cierto que despues de morir volvemos a vivir?
-Si, hijita, claro que si...
-Dices la verdad, pero...ya no somos los mismos!

[shunyadragon]

I really see no fundamental difference between the "stream of consciousness" and a more conventional self/soul, except that the term "stream of consciousness" insists on the inherently changeable nature of the content of the self/soul. But since the "stream of consciousness" persists after death, what is the difference with the concept of soul?

The difference seems to reside in the concept of reincarnation, a process in which memories of a previous personality become unavailable to the new manifestation of mind.Still object to your attempt to differentiate and define things in the afterlife. The reality of the soul may be a stream of consciousness, or the reality of the stream of consiousness may be souls or nothing at all.

One of the most luminous illustrations of anatta and reincarnation is this authentic anecdote, related by a Peruvian friend who is a journalist and writer:

(One day, as my friend was busy writing an article at his desk, his four-year old daughter asked him:)

-Papa, es cierto que despues de morir volvemos a vivir?
-Si, hijita, claro que si...
-Dices la verdad, pero...ya no somos los mismos!Nice quote!

Your attempts to define philosophy and religion, East and West?, stumbled all over the place. Of course it is a western term, but 'women' was making a reference to it being 'technically' in western terms a philosophy as opposed to a religion. This does not work. If you want to discuss the differences between religion and what may be called a philosophy in the eastern realms, that is indeed another whole ball game. It is very clear that Buddha's teachings involved the journey of whatever whatchmacallit in this world or the after whatever. There is the problem that the language, cultural and everything about the subjective spirtual realms, between the west and the east make such a distinction in the spiritual realms of spliting frog hairs and counting angels.

Your use of 'insist' still reflects your western logic where the inherently changeable nature of anything concerns that which cannot be defined.

[Magdalenbrother]

Since there are no words in most Oriental languages which correspond exactly to our terms "philosophy" and "religion", I wonder whether trying to classify the spiritual phenomena of the Eastern world in such a way has any meaning at all.

[Richbee]

I would like to discuss the buddhist idea that there is no permanent, identifiable, distinctive "self", but that human beings are simply streams of conscienceness, similar to the flame on a candle burning down the wick. Buddhists say that impermanence characterizes a human being.

Is this idea logically tenable? Thoughts?

I believe this sets up a colossal contradiction, as the self is denied, that is, until reincarnation comes around. :whistle:

[Richbee]

Since there are no words in most Oriental languages which correspond exactly to our terms "philosophy" and "religion", I wonder whether trying to classify the spiritual phenomena of the Eastern world in such a way has any meaning at all.

I take "religion" to mean defining ultimate realities, like God, or our meaning and purpose of birth, life, death. And our sin, and life hereafter, or eternity, and our three fold indenity: body, soul and spiirt.

Any attempts to define, assert, or deny some or more of these realities, or dimensions represents Religion, IMO.

So Buddhists and even Atheists are very Religious!

Now, say, Philosophy, or "The Philosophy of Religion", I will get back to you on that.

[shunyadragon]

Since there are no words in most Oriental languages which correspond exactly to our terms "philosophy" and "religion", I wonder whether trying to classify the spiritual phenomena of the Eastern world in such a way has any meaning at all.
The fact that there may or may not be the specific words you would like to see does not mean that such concepts did not exist. The concept of contemplating and learning wisdom is clearly a concept in the east. Concepts of concerning the spiritual journey also are part of their culture and history.

My objection is that there is too much effort placed on defining them from the western point of view, and not enough effort devoted to understanding. We could learn from the east, that sometimes silence is the beast answer to things that cannot be defined from our pointof view.

[shunyadragon]

I take "religion" to mean defining ultimate realities, like God, or our meaning and purpose of birth, life, death. And our sin, and life hereafter, or eternity, and our three fold indenity: body, soul and spiirt.

Any attempts to define, assert, or deny some or more of these realities, or dimensions represents Religion, IMO.

So Buddhists and even Atheists are very Religious!

Now, say, Philosophy, or "The Philosophy of Religion", I will get back to you on that.
This does reflect the current trend in western religion of attempting to define, assert, deny, splice, dice, disect, catagorize, classify and apologize religion like a corpse on a medical university slab.

I would prefer to light some lamps and appreciate, understand, contemplate, and share the beliefs of the regions and philosophies of the world.

The blind man who clings to the elephant's leg will not venture far.

[BlackOpal12]

I believe this sets up a colossal contradiction, as the self is denied, that is, until reincarnation comes around.


No offense meant, but the reason you believe that is because you have conflated two very different religions - Buddhism and Hinduism.

To start with, we need to define some terms beyond their Western philosophical understandings, so that they are in line with the original contexts. That which is most commonly referred to as self is "atman," Hinduism's eternal self, which (in post-Upanishadic Indian philosophy) is a facet of the immutable Braham, the divine undercurrent and cornerstone of all existence. The Buddhist idea of "no-self," i.e. "anatman," is the dismissal of that hyper-permanent conceptualization of an immutable Self. Unlike the Christian "soul," with which atman is most commonly compared, the Self of Hindu philosophy is not simply eternal, but is jointly an aspect of, and the entirety of, the divine - if this is difficult to understand that way, think of atman as the Christ, and Brahman as God. Hence, the Buddhist derogation of Self is far displaced from the percieved assault on the conscious "me" understood by the West. Regarding the precious makeup of the phenomena of "me," there is a rather involved logical process through which the understanding of the aggregate-self is arrived upon - but I'll come back to that in another post.

Now, onto "reincarnation."

Calling the interpolation of aggregates in the cycle of karmic transmigration "reincarnation" is about as accurate as describing a carefully cultured rose as a "little tree."

Whereas the Hindu belief in reincarnation is based off the upwelling and downwelling of an enternal constant, the atman (i.e. soul), the Buddhist belief is significantly more elusive - the karmic repercussions of any given phenomenon or nomenon affect the percieved individual not only through conscious understanding of the action and the reactions catalyzed thereby, but also by the overall existential impact of said karma - much akin to the so-called "butterfly theory" in Western thought. There is no true, eternal self to be reincarnated - there are only the effects of one's own actions relaying their results upon later phenomena of self and other in a web of phenomenological interconnectedness. To draw upon the parallel of the river, the Hindu understanding of Self is the equivalent of a single drop of water maintaining its dualistic "me vs. not-me" in regards to the river - the drop is a part of the river, but it sees itself as somehow separate from the river, despite the water-ness of both sides. Furthermore, the drop may see itself as being constantly cycled, through liquid form in the river, to gaseous form away from the river, etc.; however, the drop's dualistic understanding of its "self" cannot force the river to move without it, nor can it move apart from that river. The drop is not "reincarnated" as rain, nor does it take form as the whole river - it is, at once, simply a drop, and yet, it is the same as the water from which it delusionally separates itself.

Yes, that's a very heavy statement to make - but that's the easiest way to think of it.

I will return tomorrow after work. Now, I sleep.
The Opal

[shunyadragon]

No offense meant, but the reason you believe that is because you have conflated two very different religions - Buddhism and Hinduism.

To start with, we need to define some terms beyond their Western philosophical understandings, so that they are in line with the original contexts. That which is most commonly referred to as self is "atman," Hinduism's eternal self, which (in post-Upanishadic Indian philosophy) is a facet of the immutable Braham, the divine undercurrent and cornerstone of all existence. The Buddhist idea of "no-self," i.e. "anatman," is the dismissal of that hyper-permanent conceptualization of an immutable Self. Unlike the Christian "soul," with which atman is most commonly compared, the Self of Hindu philosophy is not simply eternal, but is jointly an aspect of, and the entirety of, the divine - if this is difficult to understand that way, think of atman as the Christ, and Brahman as God. Hence, the Buddhist derogation of Self is far displaced from the percieved assault on the conscious "me" understood by the West. Regarding the precious makeup of the phenomena of "me," there is a rather involved logical process through which the understanding of the aggregate-self is arrived upon - but I'll come back to that in another post.

Now, onto "reincarnation."

Calling the interpolation of aggregates in the cycle of karmic transmigration "reincarnation" is about as accurate as describing a carefully cultured rose as a "little tree."

Whereas the Hindu belief in reincarnation is based off the upwelling and downwelling of an enternal constant, the atman (i.e. soul), the Buddhist belief is significantly more elusive - the karmic repercussions of any given phenomenon or nomenon affect the percieved individual not only through conscious understanding of the action and the reactions catalyzed thereby, but also by the overall existential impact of said karma - much akin to the so-called "butterfly theory" in Western thought. There is no true, eternal self to be reincarnated - there are only the effects of one's own actions relaying their results upon later phenomena of self and other in a web of phenomenological interconnectedness. To draw upon the parallel of the river, the Hindu understanding of Self is the equivalent of a single drop of water maintaining its dualistic "me vs. not-me" in regards to the river - the drop is a part of the river, but it sees itself as somehow separate from the river, despite the water-ness of both sides. Furthermore, the drop may see itself as being constantly cycled, through liquid form in the river, to gaseous form away from the river, etc.; however, the drop's dualistic understanding of its "self" cannot force the river to move without it, nor can it move apart from that river. The drop is not "reincarnated" as rain, nor does it take form as the whole river - it is, at once, simply a drop, and yet, it is the same as the water from which it delusionally separates itself.

Yes, that's a very heavy statement to make - but that's the easiest way to think of it.

I will return tomorrow after work. Now, I sleep.
The OpalGood analogies, but I would not make specific seperations of the differences between Hinduism and Buddhism as far as understanding the nature of the soul. The journey of the soul may described many and all may reflect a different viewpoint of the journey, which is essentially unknown. We may be as drops, if so what is half a drop, and then half of that. The attributes of what some people call the soul may be expressed in the journey as drops, mists, snowflakes, the river, the sea, the clouds, or atoms. Part of us may be unique, part shared, part or all may be the journey of existence and nothing more.

I view reincarnation as the journey through many worlds, whatever they may be or where ever they are.

[Happy Buddha]

A Buddhist does not believe that anything or anyone has an inherent essence, or soul. The relative existence of the ego is accepted, but not its inherent existence. The point being that the existence of the ego is purely supported by transient conditions and that, as its necessary conditions cease to exist, then so does it.

The absolute self is realised solely through meditation, when one "drops off body and mind" (Master Dogen) and directly apprehends reality. A Buddha is a practitioner who has accomplished this at the highest level and who is a relative individual whilst simultaneously being fully aware of and an extension/continuation of all reality. The best analogy might be an individual drop of water thrown up by the ocean remaining fully conscious of and able to articulate the awareness of the entire ocean.

That is an absolute self. It is different from the ego and it is not a soul or an essence. It is pure subjectivity which cannot be objectified.

[shunyadragon]

A Buddhist does not believe that anything or anyone has an inherent essence, or soul. The relative existence of the ego is accepted, but not its inherent existence. The point being that the existence of the ego is purely supported by transient conditions and that, as its necessary conditions cease to exist, then so does it.

The absolute self is realised solely through meditation, when one "drops off body and mind" (Master Dogen) and directly apprehends reality. A Buddha is a practitioner who has accomplished this at the highest level and who is a relative individual whilst simultaneously being fully aware of and an extension/continuation of all reality. The best analogy might be an individual drop of water thrown up by the ocean remaining fully conscious of and able to articulate the awareness of the entire ocean.

That is an absolute self. It is different from the ego and it is not a soul or an essence. It is pure subjectivity which cannot be objectified.
I often hear versions of this stated various ways from different Buddhists as I hear the orthodox view stated from different religions, but I still hold to the concept that journey and nature of the soul is unknown to us, and our attempts to seperate, divide and define the journey beyond the dust left behind is an illusion whatever it is.

[Happy Buddha]

The soul eh.......................


As one of your forefathers once asked, "What is it that thus comes?".

When I can answer that I'll call myself a proper Buddhist. I wonder if it'll be in this life? :sigh:

[shunyadragon]

The soul eh.......................

The soul eh . . . its a four letter word.


As one of your forefathers once asked, "What is it that thus comes?".

When I can answer that I'll call myself a proper Buddhist. I wonder if it'll be in this life? :sigh:
When I realize that I cannot answer it I would realize that I am on the journey and I would not care to call myself by a proper name.

'If you meet Buddha on the path kill him!'

[Happy Buddha]

Well put. I did say that if I could answer then I'd call myself a Buddhist.

Perhaps I should change my tag to Happy Pilgrim? At least there's happiness!! :smile: