Question 2: The Buddha makes the claim, which may draw some support from modern psychology, that the self does not exist. Describe the self that the Buddha says does not exist and explain the Buddha's principal argument against it. Do you agree or disagree with the Buddha’s argument that this kind of self doesn’t exist? Or are you unable to take a position? Give two specific reasons for your view, and explain your reasons support either the existence of the self or the non-existence of the self, or why they explain why you are unable to take a position on the question.

My answer:




  Question 2 states that: "The Buddha makes the claim… that the self does not exist."  I would rephrase that to say that the Buddha claims that, what we intuitively assume or perceive to be the self, is NOT the self.   Acclaimed Buddhist scholar, Bhikkhu Bodhi, agrees that in the teaching of the non-self the Buddha is not, exactly, saying that we don't have a self.  To use his words, "I would not say that the teaching of 'non-self' means that we don't have a self."[1]  In lecture, professor Wright explains that Buddhist doctrine claims that the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) are what constitute the entirety of the self.[2]  That, however, is not clear from reading the Buddha's, 'The Discourse on the Not-self.'  In the discourse, the Buddha simply lists the five aggregates and explains why THOSE congregates are NOT the self.  HE doesn't say there is no self.[3]  My takeaway, from the not-self discourse is that the Buddha, quite possibly, is explaining what the self actually IS, by making clear to us, what it is not.


     The first reason the Buddha claims that the aggregates are not the self is because they lead to affliction: "if form were self, then form would not lead to affliction."[3]  The second reason the aggregates are not the self appears to be because we can't determine their course (control them), "and indeed.. since feeling is not-self… it does not obtain regarding feeling: 'May my feeling be thus, may my feeling not be thus.'"  In other words, I cannot tell my feelings how to feel. They arise of their own accord.  I, a central-commanding self, cannot control them, does not control them.  So, they are not the self. The Buddha goes on to say, "O, monks, is perception permanent or impermanent...unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"  The response is that perception is impermanent and therefore unsatisfactory.  The Buddha ties it up saying that if something is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change, then it is NOT the self:

"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."[3]


     The Buddha makes clear that the five aggregates are not the self and they are not the self because they:

1) lead to affliction

2) aren't controlled by an 'I'

3) are impermanent

4) are unsatisfactory

5) are subject to change.

Therefore, what seems to logically follow is that the real/true self:

1) doesn't suffer (lead to affliction)

2) can self-determine (control the course of the aggregates)

3) is permanent (An aside, the Buddhist doctrine of reincarnation is consistent with the idea of a self being permanent. What is it, after all, that reincarnates?)

4) is satisfied

5) maintains its essence (is not subject to change).


     I, agree, that what we intuitively believe to be the self, the five aggregates, is not the self. I believe, for the most part, in a self that has the qualities that the Buddha insists a 'self' must have.  He seems to be describing the soul.  The aspect that is difficult is #2 -the idea that the self is in control.  The half-brain experiments presented in lecture and William James' theory that human 'instincts' control much of human behavior, give support to the idea that there is something in us, that we are unconscious of, that acts on our behalf.[4,5]  James says that, "..human behavior is more flexibly intelligent... because we have... instincts... We tend to be blind to the existence of these instincts, however, precisely because they work so well -- because they process information so effortlessly and automatically."[5]  Logically, it would seem, that if there is something in us acting on our behalf that we are not conscious of, then we couldn't be in control of that.  The only way around this is if what the Buddha is describing as 'self' is something divine, God-like or at least connected to something divine. Only something of a divine nature could be self-determining or in control.  If this, supposed, controller aspect of self is, somehow, divinely connected, then being a determiner or controller of ourselves is a possibility, we are simply unconscious of it.


     My reading of Buddhist doctrine is that it does not necessarily assert that there is no self, but more that the self is a difficult thing to define.  "The self in its ultimate nature is a mysterious, ungraspable entity; it is the unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unthought thinker, the unknown knower; it is the inner controller; it is what is immortal in us,"[6]   Professor Wright quotes a similar, yet slightly different, statement, "There are deeds but there is no doer. There are thoughts but there is no thinker."[4]  The first statement, taken from 'Foundations in Buddhism,' doesn't say that there is NO thinker/knower or NO doer/seer. It says that the seer is UNSEEN; the knower is UNKNOWN.  In conclusion, my determination is that there is a self but it is not the 'five aggregate-self' that we can grasp; it is not a self that we are, generally, psychologically conscious of; it is an entity/essence that exists but that is ultimately unknowable.  There is something to us that is more than what we can grasp with our senses. It is beyond suffering, beyond clinging; it endures and at its essence is unchanging.  The Buddha calls it the self; others might call it soul.
















Footnotes:

[1] Robert Wright, Princeton University, Lecture Three: Does Your Self Exist, What did the Buddha Mean? > Buddhism and Modern Psychology (Coursera) https://class.coursera.org/psychbuddhism-001/lecture/25 (accessed April 9, 2014)

[2] Robert Wright, Princeton University, Lecture Three: Does Your Self Exist, The Buddha's Discourse on the Not-self > Buddhism and Modern Psychology (Coursera) https://class.coursera.org/psychbuddhism-001/lecture/23 (accessed April 9, 2014)

[3] N.K.G. Mendis (translated by), Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic, 2007. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html (accessed April 9, 2014)

[4] Robert Wright, Princeton University, Lecture Three: Does Your Self Exist, Modern Psychology and the Self? > Buddhism and Modern Psychology (Coursera) https://class.coursera.org/psychbuddhism-001/lecture/27 (accessed April 9, 2014)

[5] Leda Cosmides & John Tooby, Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer > Center for Evolutionary Psychology, 1997. http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/primer.html (accessed April 9, 2014)

[6] Gethin, Rupert. The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford University Press, NY (1998). pg.134