Nonexistence of Self
Contrasting views on the self in Vedic and Buddhist philosophy.
 Comments on Nonexistence of Self | |
|
Truth-lover
New Usergroup: member Joined: Jun 08, 2005 Total Articles: 0 Total Comments: 1 |
 #1
At the highest level, there is not really a contradiction between Buddhism and Hinduism. Buddhism denies the absolute reality of the subject/object distinction, so that "all is one". In Vedantic thought we find the notion that the composite self (subject) is ultimately identical to what it observes. The fundamental unity, prior to its supposed division into parts, is the Self which encompasses all subjects and objects. The situation is analogous to that of an ocean, where some of the drops of water have hardened into ice. The bits of ice are the ego/personality/self. The ocean is the Self. |
|
Will i was
New  Usergroup: member Joined: Jul 20, 2010 Location: Texas Total Articles: 0 Total Comments: 2 |
#2
Truth-lover wrote: In Vedantic thought we find the notion that the composite self (subject) is ultimately identical to what it observes. The fundamental unity, prior to its supposed division into parts, is the Self which encompasses all subjects and objects. sounds like an infinite regress happens with that sort of assertion. if it's identical to what it observes, does what it observes too have the capacity to observe? if it does, then does what it observes observe this observing which would then be observing this observation of observing of observing, and so on? duality's gotta be a possibility here. perception's representational; what it represents, then, can't be, or else you have an infinite regress, and nowhere in this neverending chain would you have a thing to observe, you'd only have said observings -- the regress precludes leaving room for things perceivable. Edited by Will i was on 07/23/10 |
|
Will i was
New Usergroup: member Joined: Jul 20, 2010 Location: Texas Total Articles: 0 Total Comments: 2 |
#3
but then i don't know if i've said what all i want to say. what i wrote above is to say that two mirrors couldn't exist in front of each other, and they clearly do (but then that's not even the aptest analogy because nowhere in the two mirrors' chain of reflections is there any observing being done). what's really wrong with your quote: first, i think it's just an absurd notion to suggest you can observe observation; what does that entail? and second, to say it's identical is to say it has the capacity to observe. but it's more than that: if it observes anything other than what the initial observer (the subject) is observing, then is it identical? to simply be the observation is to neglect to ascribe to it the capacity to observe, and this lacking capacity renders the second part of the supposed equation UN-identical. and i think i was gonna say more, but i forgot what... That's just the mental prowess of an "initiate" i guess |
| |
||
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.