The bad idea of no-soul
This blog is about the idea there is no-self or in Sanskrit anâtman. What goes into forming such an idea?
Why should anyone uphold such an idea and fight for it? What in my character or disposition requires that I invest in such an idea? These, and other questions arise when we begin to look at the idea there is no-self.
It is remarkable that many Western Buddhists, before they decide to become Buddhists, are very much open to the idea that there is no-self or soul—so much so that they are willing to champion this idea; further believing the self or the ego, as they prefer to call it, is the main cause of suffering. And then they find Buddhism!
When Westerners become Buddhists, whatever the Buddha said in his discourses, that he asked his followers to abandon what is not the soul instead of the soul (P., attâ), has no impact when it should. It's dismissed. The idea is deeply stuck in their minds that there can be no such thing as a soul and even if there is, of what value is it for me?
For such people, the soul has no third-person relevancy. The value of the first-person and their experiences matters not, even though the first-person is, arguably, where we look to find the soul which, however, is unable to discern itself. When a person asks, "Who am I?" it is the soul that asks this question but cannot recognize itself no matter how many times it asks although it has the ability to do so. But who wants to go here? The soul has no value in a world in which third-person evidence is required that could not care less about qualia (first-person raw experiences).
The idea that there is no-self or soul seems to depend, heavily, on third-person evidence which is outside of the first-person. The value of the first-person is under siege in the twenty-first century. Those who come to Buddhism under the influence of the idea that there is no soul have no place in Buddhism. The Buddha never denied the soul—only what is not the soul or anâtman.
Read More @ Source
It is remarkable that many Western Buddhists, before they decide to become Buddhists, are very much open to the idea that there is no-self or soul—so much so that they are willing to champion this idea; further believing the self or the ego, as they prefer to call it, is the main cause of suffering. And then they find Buddhism!
When Westerners become Buddhists, whatever the Buddha said in his discourses, that he asked his followers to abandon what is not the soul instead of the soul (P., attâ), has no impact when it should. It's dismissed. The idea is deeply stuck in their minds that there can be no such thing as a soul and even if there is, of what value is it for me?
For such people, the soul has no third-person relevancy. The value of the first-person and their experiences matters not, even though the first-person is, arguably, where we look to find the soul which, however, is unable to discern itself. When a person asks, "Who am I?" it is the soul that asks this question but cannot recognize itself no matter how many times it asks although it has the ability to do so. But who wants to go here? The soul has no value in a world in which third-person evidence is required that could not care less about qualia (first-person raw experiences).
The idea that there is no-self or soul seems to depend, heavily, on third-person evidence which is outside of the first-person. The value of the first-person is under siege in the twenty-first century. Those who come to Buddhism under the influence of the idea that there is no soul have no place in Buddhism. The Buddha never denied the soul—only what is not the soul or anâtman.
Read More @ Source
Comments
Post a Comment