(WARNING: Massively ignorant opinions in this post about a religion I don't know well.)
Spotted at The Toynbee convector:
Buddhists do not admit the existence of “selves” or “souls”
This is one thing I don't understand about Buddhism. Buddhists affirm that there are no selves, that identity is an illusion. And yet, they (most of them, at least) believe in samsara, the infinite (if you don't manage to break it) cycle of deaths and rebirths. But if there are no selves, then what gets reincarnated, exactly? In what sense can you say that newborn person A is "the same as" recently deceased person B? You can't! Belief in reincarnation and belief in the illusionary nature of the self are incompatible in my view. I seem to recall that Max Weber briefly commented on this problem in his The Religion of India, but I don't have the volume handy to quote from it.
Well, it's not like logical consistency is the primary characteristic of religions. But still, how that contradiction came about? Maybe reincarnation is a leftover from Hinduism too fundamental to leave behind?
Or maybe there is another explanation. A religion must give something to its followers. It must state that there is a problem and then offer itself as the solution. Otherwise, why convert to it, why practice it? But if reincarnation doesn't happen, then there is no "problem". Everybody would automatically achieve Nirvana (if you understand Nirvana as nonexistence) upon death, even if they ignored Buddhist teachings altogether. Buddhism without reincarnation is a pointless doctrine. There is no incentive to preach it and there is no incentive to learn it, unless it offers something for the here-and-now, like a method for relaxation, a way to gain self-control, cool martial arts moves, or whatever.
Corrections and explanations are welcome. By the way, what is the best book to read if one is interested in an account of how the old Vedic religion evolved into Hinduism? The Axial Age and all that stuff.
2 comments:
Tim -- I think that any self is a separation from ultimate reality. And it is that separation which is condemned to reincarnation. I think it is wrong to call it an illusion. People constantly use that word when talking about Buddhism. It is, rather, an impediment. So, if what exists is an ultimate reality, then the self does not exist. There are a comments at the end of the post on this. -- David, from Toynbee convector.
Here is the Wikipedia page for Anatta. Apparently, the concept has been controversial since the beginning.
I'm interested in "identity as an illusion" ideas since I learnt about Derek Parfit and his work Reasons and Persons. In a way, the concept of identity which the book argues for is very reminiscent of buddhist teachings.
Post a Comment