A new understanding of the metaphysics of Anatta
Posted on September 4th, 2012
R Chandrasoma
The Buddhist concept of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”AnattaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ has long been a puzzle to metaphysicians outside the traditional schools. Professor Suganasiri ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” in an article published in your Journal ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” argues that the Pali word ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”anattaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ must be translated as ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”asoulƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ rather than the well-established term ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”no-soulƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢. He believes that the early Buddhist savants wished to distance themselves from the Brahaminic notion of a soul as an indwelling essence that truly defines personhood. On this matter one must beg to differ ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” the greater possibility is that the Buddhists were reacting to the views of the Jainists who had great influence on early Buddhist thinking. Indeed, much of Buddhist eschatology seems to be a nuanced adaptation of Jaina views on what may be described as the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”Karmic OdysseyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ of sentient beings. To Jainists,ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ life – in the larger sense of the word ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” is a struggle by benighted souls to cleanse themselves of the material dross that impedes their ascent to the Pure World of Spirit. This is close to the root idea of purification by good works (Kusala Dhamma) in Buddhism. The Jaina vision of the soul is that of a spiritual homunculus ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” a divine entity that becomes part of the Godhead when purged of material impurities.
The founders of Byddhism adapted these ideas ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” of the struggle of the soul to free itself from ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”impuritiesƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ in pereginations across worlds ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” but rejected forthrightly the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”homuncularƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ concept of the essence of personhood. The word ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”AnattaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ signifies rejection of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”attaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ as a core-being responsible for deeds and acts in a fluxional world. In the West, there were two competing concepts for understanding the true nature of the soul ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” the Judaeo-Christian and the ancient Aristotelian veiws on the primacy of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”formƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢. The Judaeo-Chritian consept of the soul and personhood can be directly compared with Jaina views on ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”spritual agents struggling to be freeƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢. The theistic tradition has it that God created souls as the foundation of a perishable corporeality. The notion of metempsychosis ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” the journeying of souls in diverse bodily forms ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…”was not accepted in yhr standard Monotheisms but found favour among the some ancient Greek sects.
Let us turn to that seminal figure Descartes ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…”described as he ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”Father of Modern PhilosophyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢.He refined the early religious views by speaking of the soul as a ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”thinking substanceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ (res cogitans) directing a perishable material body. The material body was a machine directed by a spiritual agent ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” the soul ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” that survived death. In many ways, this is a retreat from the far more sophisticated version of Aristotle who spoke of a soul that he describes as the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”formƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ of the living agent. A living thing has formal organization that defines its true nature ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” he called this the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”soulƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢. We mention this Aristotelian understanding of personhood because it is very close the the functional theory of personhood advocated by early Buddhist thinkers. When the latter speak of anatta they endorse a funtionalist iunterpretation of individuals and personhood. In modern terminology, a complex system can show an ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”intentional stanceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ in its behavior while not hvaing an ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”agentƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ of any kind inside to direct its purposive activity. It is this ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”functionalismƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ that was highlighted by Buddhist thinkers when they repudiated the notion of ssoul as the essence of being. The Five Aggregate concept of personhood is a functionalist analysis of mind that was far ahead of its time. We must add a caveat ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” the karmic succession of beings based on a form of trans-generational heredity is a porely religious concept and must be separated fron the advanced concept of personhood found in BuddhismƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢
A brief reference to ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”HinduƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ views on the soul may be helpful. The ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”emanationƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ theory of the developed schools of Hindu thought stands quite outside the compass of Buddhist religious speculation. It is a purely ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”religiousƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ theory and is out of step with the robust empiricism of early thinkers. In the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”emanationƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ view, souls are part of the God-Head and personhood reflects this spark of divinity within. It is not this late fancy theory of the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”AdvaityaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ school of Hinduism that the ancients reacted againstƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” it was the moreƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ down to earth belief that something special within the body ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” the soul ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” acted as the immaterial baisis of personhood. Thus, translation of opposing view as ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”No SoulƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ is quite acceptable. The word ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”AsoulƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ has a funny ring to it ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” for instance, a system without sentience is ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”non-sentientƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ not ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”asentientƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢. The leading contemporary philosopher Thomas Metzinger speaks of the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”No-Self Model of Human SubjectivityƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ He argues that self and subjectivity are dynamicalƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ virtual states in the Brain and Nervous system. The Buddhist did not couch this truth in exactly the same way but the message was exactly the same. To suggest that this seminal though was a ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”reactionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ to esoteric Hindu beliefs does grave injustice to the originality and acumen of Buddhist thought.
September 4th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
I wonder whether this writer is a Buddhist or not. Quoting Jains and wetern philosphers who came up with muddled up concepts and doctrines about self and soul is mind boggling. Mahavira(eel wriggker as Thathagata refered to him) the Nigantaya vomitted blood at his death bed probably as a consequence of his actions directed at Tathahgata. Thathagata, esplains clearly the concept of self in many suttras, especially Mahaanidaana and Anattalakkana suttra. If this is not clear, I wonder whether this man has understood Buddhism or not, (diluting Budhhist concepts) as most Buddhists have a knowledge(including Bhikkuus – the correct word to refer to Deciples of Buddha NOT monk or priest) but little UNDERSTANDING of the precious doctrine.
September 4th, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Sunil,
OK , you came before me to respond to this fool.
No point arguing with this fool. He has taken over the attack on “Byddhism” from previous fool called Ben Silva.
How does this bugger born yesterday knows whether Jaints adoped Buddhist explanations or Buddha adopted the aincient fool , Niganta Nata Putta ? Has this bugger read how beautifully the Buddha defeated the Nighanta on the argument that “bodily action or kamma ( Danda as called by the NIghantayas) is superior to mental action” ? This fool has no intelectual capacity to understand that just because other religions existed before Gautama Buddha does not mean the Buddha adopted old ideas. The other religions have eveloved a lot and adopted Buddhist ideas. Not only religions but also the modern science and particularly psychology too adopting the real science of Buddhism.
This fool will suffer in this birth as well as future births heavily. Feel sorry for him.
September 7th, 2012 at 12:51 pm
This’s not a wonder at a time when yellow robed empty men print
false birth certificates to the Buddha, changing his birth place. First of all they must learn පන්සිල්..!
Regarding the anatta word that the Buddha’s teachings are in pali as it said by buddha. Sinhala also evolved with pali, thus sinhala is the best language to learn buddhism next to pali. English is from there where’s spreading great Myth of god in the world. So, learning of buddhism in english is limited. We can suggest more words for anatta as follows;
ex-soul, ex-self, out of soul/self or nil-self/soul, etc, but a real studious one can see the genuine meaning with other words of buddha.
The buddha said that, the world is empty (sunyo loko/සුඤ්ඤො ලොකො) & that means, the world is EMPTY of self or soul & possesses or owns. So it’s well clear that anatta means EMPTINESS of self/soul. This’s why buddha explained dhamma in 1000s of suttas instead only one.
So, we must be STUDIOUS & searching dhamma than be hurry to create more confusions in dhamma while lacking in learning.!