Buddhism related to self, an introductory blog post

[honu]

I recently wrote a long, general, drawn out introduction to Buddhism blog post for a starting point for discussion in philosophy groups on Facebook, which of course didn't go far. I'll mention that post here in case it's of interest, and of course I'd be happy to talk about the ideas.

It's a bit unconventional for trying to interpret ideas that are usually framed within complicated sets of very foreign concepts in everyday language and terms, which may or may not work, likely a bit oversimplified in places.

In a sense for discussion purposes it doesn't work as well as interpreting one simple point or term, and leaving the larger framework alone, but as those groups members typically have very little background in philosophy or Buddhism it seemed to make sense to go in the other direction.

Since it is general thoughts maybe general response would work, or flagging mistakes, or really any feedback is appreciated, even the standard "that's all wrong."

http://2monkeysbuddhism.blogspot.com/2016/07/buddhism-related-to-self.html

[Brucenkhamen]

It's very long so I've only scanned through trying to pick up the main points, the following might be helpful.

The teaching on Anatta is not so much about confirming or denying an essence, the Buddha was more interested in having us examine the 5 aggregates and reflect on their not self nature, along these lines

The Blessed One said this:

"Monks, form is nonself. For if, monks, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to determine form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.' But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to determine form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.'

"Feeling is nonself....

Perception is nonself....

Volitional formations are nonself....

Consciousness is nonself. For if, monks, consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to determine consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.' But because consciousness is non-self, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to determine consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.' -- (SN 22:59; III 66-68)

According to the standard formula, insight into the five aggregates as impermanent, suffering, and nonself induces disenchantment (nibbida), dispassion (viraga), and liberation (vimutti). (dukkha), and nonself (anatta). --Bhikkhu Bodhi

However, as you discussed "self" could have many potential meanings, so we need to look at what was understood as self in India at the Buddhas time, what was it that he was denying...

The Buddha is presented as having taught the doctrine (vada) of no soul (anatman).

What is being denied what is a soul? Western languages are at home in the Christian cultural tradition. Christian theologians have differed vastly over what the soul is. For Aristotle, and thus for Aquinas, it is the form of the body, what makes a given individual person a whole rather than a mere assemblage of parts.

However, most Christians conceive of the soul, however vaguely, in a completely different way, which goes back to Plato: that the soul is precisely other than the body, as in the common expression body and soul, and is some kind of disembodied mental, and above all, moral, agent, which survives the body at death.

But none of this has anything to do with the Buddhas position. He was opposing the Upanisadic theory of the soul. In the Upanisads the soul, atman, is opposed to both the body and the mind; for example, it cannot exercise such mental functions as memory or volition. It is an essence, and by definition an essence does not change. Furthermore, the essence of the individual living being was claimed to be literally the same as the essence of the universe. This is not a complete account of the Upanisadic soul, but adequate for present purposes.

Once we see what the Buddha was arguing against, we realise that it was something very few westerners have ever believed in and most have never even heard of. He was refusing to accept that a person had an unchanging essence. Moreover, since he was interested in how rather than what, he was not so much saying that people are made of such and such components, and the soul is not among them, as that people function in such and such ways, and to explain their functioning there is no need to posit a soul. The approach is pragmatic, not purely theoretical. -- Gombrich

My view is that there is a "self" but it is purely conceptual and relative, understanding this there is no need to identify with it, cling to it, defend it, or be trapped by the idea of what "I" am and that "I" can't change.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Brucenkhamen

[honu]

I would agree that the core teachings are a great approach point to Buddhism. Of course there are limitations to that.

The teachings weren't in English, so one relies on translations of terms that don't necessarily translate to read anything. Also the scope is quite broad, and different parts are covering a range of subjects.

As with this short interpretation, it still takes some further interpretation: "there is no need to identify with [self], cling to it, defend it, or be trapped by the idea of what "I" am and that "I" can't change."

Of course people identify with themselves, with their self, and are open to some degree of change, so at both ends the main points can easily get lost. It means more once one has read through a few rounds of core teachings and interpretations, but prior to that there really isn't much stated in such a phrasing, even if meaning is there if you already get it.

It didn't work for this to start discussion in a philosophy group, which was not completely unexpected.

I'm not sure who would read all of what I wrote, or who could get what out of it, but after a few weeks of blaming others for not having more substantial discussions in such groups I felt like writing out some ideas to see where it might go.

Buddhism, like Western philosophy, doesn't lend itself to being communicated and discussed in two or three sentences, or in the even shorter preferred format, in a meme.