I don’t mean to be a bigot here. I have a strong and deliberate moral abhorrence for what I believe Buddhism to be (though considerable sympathy for Gautama Buddha himself, by the way), but I also am aware that my knowledge of the subject is deficient.
Another “east meets west” hiccup.
Alright, try this on for size:
The Buddhists are claiming “Anatman” which is the negation of “Atman” which is a sanskrit word that is conventionally translated as “Self.” It doesn’t carry all the specific nuances in that translation (nor any of the metaphysical/cultural assumptions built into the word Atman), but its serviceable for the point trying to be made.
Anatta (in Pali) or Anatman (in Sanskrit) can be translated either as “No Self” or “Not-Self”
What Westerners Often Mistake this to Mean - “GASP! This is Nihilism!”
Not quite…in fact Siddartha was against that as much as he was against Eternalism.
What the Buddhist are denying is that there can be a “Self” which in their definition, is a permanent, static, self-sufficient, unchanging entity buried somewhere inside of that Meat-Body of yours.
What Westerners Often Mistake this to Mean - “GASP! This is Materialism!”
Umm…as the only Materialist in the room…No. They aren’t claiming that either.
Take away point 1:
Traditional/Classical Buddhism =/= Materialism
(Some modern variants that came to pass during the CounterCulture of the '60s in the West seem to move in that direction however. But back in Asia… No.)
So what they are denying is that a person has an essence, a part whose continued existence is required for a person to continue to exist.
As a Materialist, I would go something like “What about the Brain? What about the Heart?”
A person born in the religious tradition of the West might go, “What about the Soul?”
The Buddhist would point out: “But what comprises a Person?”
Parts making up the Body, Parts making up the Mind (like Sensation, Desires).
Mr. Buddhist would go: “Ok. But do all parts of the Person need to continue to exist in order for this “I” for this “Self” to continue to Exist?”
Of course not - people lose Limbs, People get over particular desires like addictions. So the “Self” , the “Me”, the “I” can’t refer to the collective whole. There’s got to be something more fundamental in order for a Self to exist.
This supposed Self would have to be some part which accounts for a person’s identity over time. It would be able to explain why the present version of You is the Same as the Past version of You and the Future version of You.
And this is where the English language bumps into a problem with trying to translate the Indic concept being said.
The problem is there’s an ambiguity about the word “Same.”
When I say “X and Y are the same” i could mean two different things.
1.) X and Y are
Qualitatively Identical - the bear the exact same qualities and attributes.
2.) X and Y are
Numerically Identical - X and Y are two names for one entity.
However, the Buddhists (and Indic Logic in general) will point out:
Something can be Qualitatively Identical, but Numerically Different.
Think Two Cars that some out of a Factory looking exactly alike.
Something can also be Qualitatively Different, but Numerically Identical
Think about a Plant - Green in Summer, Brown in Fall. Its qualities have changed, but it is still Numerically Identical.
That part, the whole “Numerically Identical, Qualitatively Distinct” is what the Buddhists are denying to exist.
Why? Well this would require a large discussion about the Skhandas, or what gets translated into Heaps or Aggregates. I’ll let Rossum handle this tidbit if he wants, because it would excessively long on my part.
To give you the shortened version: The Skhandas are categories of composition of a person - Physical Attributes (Rupa), Sensation, Perception, Volition, and Consciousness.
Remember what I said about how the Buddhists define “Self” - its Permanent, Unchanging, etc. etc.
But… Physical Attributes, Sensations, Perceptions, one’s Volition/Will, and Consciousness (here meaning specifically the Awareness, the focus of the mind), are Not Permanent.
They are Impermanent. Ergo, there is No Self. No fundamental “thing” which is You.
What Westerners Often Mistake this to Mean - “GASP! Isn’t this Materialism and Nihilism like I was saying before?”
Not quite sparky. Look what they aren’t denying.
1.) They aren’t denying Non-Material components to a Person.
2.) They aren’t denying your “conventional being.”
If i punch you, you will hurt. If i stab you, you will bleed. The Buddhists are not denying that either.
And there’s no “Nihility” here…because of Dharma and Samsara (Reincarnation).
When you die, they will say your Skhandas that made up that “Conventional You” will simply scatter…and reformulate once again based on one’s Dharma.
If i had to put this into Western Philosophical Terminology?
A person isn’t so much a Being, and more like a Process, a Process that is arises due to multiple causes and conditions - something they like to call “Dependent Origination.”
They will insist (or some of them at least), that there is no fundamental Substrata that undergoes this process. It will continue on and on and on…until Nirvana (again, for some) is achieved in which case the Process stops.
…Notice however, that “stopping” =/= Annihilaton.
