Question 1: Buddhist Doctrine of No-Self

Question 1: Buddhist Doctrine of No-Self

Introduction

No-self or Anatta is a unique and a central teaching in the philosophy of Buddhism (Benovsky 25). It is one of the features that characterize phenomenal existence. The no-self doctrine teaches that there is no everlasting or permanent self or soul either outside or inside the five aggregates that make up a being. The doctrine has been widely discussed as a major philosophical problem, notwithstanding its ethical significance. The notion of no-self has been inherently difficult to conceptualize and accept, but it has continued to attract many philosophers (Benovsky 72). There is a number of arguments in support of and objections against the no-self philosophy. This essay explains one of the arguments made in support of the no-self philosophy and advances one objection that someone who believes in self might use to criticize this argument. This paper also highlights how an ardent Buddhist might reply to this objection. Based on these responses, the paper will then seek to establish whether or not the argument for no-self is a good reason to believe that there is no self.

The Argument from Impermanence

This argument posits that there is no ultimate existence of a permanent self (Tuske 48). This argument is understood from the perspectives of conventional reality and ultimate reality. From the ultimate reality point of view, things actually exist as they are perceived. In conventional reality, something does not actually exist, but it is only useful for people to speak and act as if it exists. The analogy of sunrise and sunset is used to make this argument. It is established that the sun does rise or set, but the relative motion between the Earth and the sun is conveniently designated as “sunrise” and “sunset.” There is also the concept of Skandhas that explains the five processes that make up a sentient person (Tuske 92). These five processes constitute one physical process and four mental processes (perception, sensation, consciousness, and impulse). Buddhists hold the belief that the five Skandhas exist in ultimate reality, but the permanent self is illusory and only exists in conventional reality. According to Buddhists, what is perceived as a sentient person is a result of the interrelated activity of the five constantly changing processes (Tuske 61) The argument of impermanence is structured as follows:

• Were there to be a permanent self, then it would persist beyond a person’s lifetime
• If a permanent self ultimately existed, then there would be one particular Skandha.
• The Skandhas undergo constant changes to ensure that no Skandha persists beyond a person’s lifetime.
• Based on the above premises, the ultimate existence of a permanent self is unreal.

The argument is further distilled and simplified into two premises:

• If there were self, then it would exist permanently.
• The five psychophysical elements are not permanent. Therefore, there is no self.

While this argument has a logical validity, questions have been raised whether or not this is a sound argument.

Objection to the Argument of Impermanence

One objection leveled against the argument of impermanence is based on the five psychophysical elements. All the psychophysical entities are in dependence on the contact between object faculty and sense faculty (Garfield 35). That Buddha listed five skandhas and not just one psychophysical element shows how he embraced some dualism. According to Garfield, the impermanence of the psychological aspects demonstrate that Buddha’s concept of duality was not the mind-body sort of dualism explained by Descartes in substances ontologies and the orthodox Indian philosophy. The argument treats the mind as an aggregate bundle constituted by transient mental events instead of viewing it as a persisting bearer of transient functions such as feeling, cognition, and volition. Based on this argument, the events being impermanent, the psychophysical elements fail to constitute a diachronic personal identity as argued on how a self is constituted. Buddhism continues to teach that liberation is achieved through a cycle of death and rebirth to reach Nirvana (a state of peace). This argument is inconsistent with the denial of the ultimate existence of self as it raises the most salient question as to who will achieve this liberation if self does not exist (Garfield 149).

Reply to the Objection

In response to this objection, Buddhists argue that persons exist conventionally and not ultimately. People’s conceptions of themselves are not in correspondence with ultimate reality (Ganeri 72). A person is mentioned as existing only by designation and not in reality. According to Ganeri, people consider themselves as persons because, experientially, they have learned to have been constituted by five psychophysical elements (Skandhas): body (rupa), perceptions (samjna), feelings (vedana), consciousness (vijnana), and volitions (samskaras). In this argument, the word ‘person’ is a convenient designator used to explain the fictitious belief that a ‘person’ is something that surpasses these elementary parts. Therefore, Buddhism is entrenched in mereological reductionism about self and persons. The psychophysical elements exist in ultimate reality, but the whole self does not exist Ganeri 108).

Persuasion to Believe in No Self

Based on the argument from impermanence and the Buddhism reply to the objection, one is not given enough reason to believe that there is no self. The argument acknowledges the ultimate existence of constituent parts that make up a body but denies the ultimate existence of this body. The claim that ‘self’ or ‘person’ is a conceptual fiction or a convenient designator is derived from the concept of ‘empty sound’ (CARUS 83). Buddha’s definition of ‘self’ specifies that if there were to be self, then it would retain its identity over time, have an aspect of permanence (enduring), and wield controlling powers over the constituent parts of the body. One is then left to ask a valid question whether the individual elements of Skandhas meet this criterion on themselves. This strategy does not offer a convincing argument for one to believe in the theory of ‘no-self’. The doctrine of Skandhas is not exhaustive in its analysis of a person and the constituent elements that constitute this body.

Conclusion

Buddhist believe that ultimate existence of self is illusory is contestable. Buddha’s teachings recognize and give credence to the existence of five Skandhas but fail to appreciate the existence of a ‘self’ that has controlling powers over these Skandhas (CARUS 37). The argument from impermanence does not offer an explicit premise that leads one to assert that the five psychophysical elements exhaustively describe what constitutes a person. The argument has attracted a lot of objections but still Buddhists continue to defend it. However, the argument from impermanence and the arguments that Buddhists use to respond to objections do convincingly lure one into believing that there is “no self’ per se.

Works Cited

Benovsky, Jiri. Eliminativism, Objects, and Persons: The Virtues of Non-Existence. Routledge, 2019.

Tuske, Joerg. Indian Epistemology and Metaphysics. Bloomsbury, 2017.

Garfield, Jay L. Engaging Buddhism: Why It Matters to Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 2015.

Ganeri, Anita. Buddhism. Raintree, 2018.

CARUS, PAUL. BUDDHISM AND ITS CHRISTIAN CRITICS. HANSEBOOKS, 2016.