Thursday, March 28, 2013

The Three Marks of Existence in the Buddhist Faith: Part Two: Anatta



A few months ago, a couple of people were inquiring if there was anything in Buddhism that I didn't like, or disagreed with, something that I found a little bit unsettling, or that puzzled me at all. I remembered back to when I was required to write a journal for an Eastern Religions course and we were asked to write down our thoughts about what would be the easiest step on The Eightfold Path for us, and what would be the most difficult. I remember that I wrote down "Right Understanding" would be the hardest for me to follow, being that I didn't completely agree with all of the aspects of Buddhist metaphysics.

The part that I had trouble agreeing with wholeheartedly was the concept of "no-soul." What I am referring to, is called "Anatta." It is the second of the three marks of existence in Buddhism. It is essentially the belief in a lack of an eternal un-dying soul within our bodies, and it contradicts the idea that an ego or personality's existence is permanent. For those that grew up in Buddhism this might not be so difficult for them to grasp, however, I was raised by a very Catholic mother. So, when I think about a future in which I would not be reunited with my parents one day, it is rather depressing to say the least.

This week I have been mulling over many varying opinions about this idea, and I've also been reading about the different perspectives people have as to the nature of what a soul really "is" or "is not" in the first place. While I still haven't formed a solid conclusion about my personal opinion about this, and rightfully so: considering how important an end-of-life concept is to a person's faith and their outlook on life; I still want to share and give my interpretations of this idea of an impermanent identity and consciousness.

While all of us understand that technically the brain dies when biological death happens and when all neurological functions cease to be, most Americans- including myself, cling to the idea that after a person dies their soul and spirit continue to live on. But if the neurological connectors that help us to form thoughts, and to feel emotion are gone, how can a person's soul truly continue to exist after death?

Buddhists say that in order for something come into being in the first place, it must be ever-changing, and subsequently cease to exist. Though, if that were the case with my identity and personality, isn't it a little strange then that I am the same person that I was yesterday? Narada Thera writes, “Buddhists do agree with (Bertrand) Russell when he says 'there is obviously some reason in which I am the same person as I was yesterday, and, to take an even more obvious example if I simultaneously see a man and hear him speaking, there is some sense in which the 'I' that sees is the same as the 'I' that hears.'” Thus, I would infer that even though we are unable to locate the identity of a person and the location of their soul scientifically, it clearly exists in a very similar way every single day.

On the website of the author Greg Stone, which runs in accordance with a book he wrote dedicated to exploring the after-life, called Under the Tree, says of those holding the "no-soul" belief:

Those holding the “no soul” view argue a person is comprised only of the aggregates (skandhas): 1) material processes, 2) feeling, 3) perception, 4) mental formations, and 5) consciousness. In the “no soul” interpretation a being that transcends the aggregates does not exist. The aggregates are all that exist. All aspects of a person are impermanent and transitory: nothing survives the dissolution of aggregates upon body death.

However, various schools of Buddhism do not seem to interpret the five aggregates of a person's existence in exactly the same way. Also, if consciousness is one of the five aggregates and the Buddha recalled his former lives, then how could that be possible without a continuous stream of consciousness that was present throughout all of his former lives?

The Buddha taught students to cease identifying with the five aggregates. He taught you are not your physical body; not your mind; not your perceptions; not your feelings; not mental imprints. Those qualities are not self. He taught cessation of attachment to those aggregates. The purpose of the practice was to free oneself from attachment and identification with that which was not self, the aggregates. (Stone)

To me, it would be extremely difficult not to identify with the five aggregates. For if we are not our processes, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness: then what are we? "Buddhism does not totally deny the existence of a personality in an empirical sense. It only attempts to show that it does not exist in an ultimate sense. The Buddhist philosophical term for an individual is santana, i.e., a flux or a continuity."(Thera) If that is the case, then there is a soul and a self in Buddhism that lies within an individual's body that is there inside of a mind everyday: most Buddhists just do not see it as being of the same consistency, everlastingly belonging to that individual, and existing beyond life.

As I mentioned before, the opinions about this from different Buddhists differ, just one of many Buddhist schools: Tibetan Buddhism, offers an intermediate state after death. I found this idea stated in a passage from the Tibetan Book of the Dead on the internet. I found this passage so interesting, because it got me thinking that if there is really no "I" in Buddhism then there could be no "you" either:

Since you [no longer] have a material body of flesh and blood, whatever may come—sounds, lights, or rays— are, all three, unable to harm you; you are incapable of dying. It is quite sufficient for you to know that these apparitions are your own thought-forms. Recognize this to be the bardo [the intermediate state after death].

Despite how much all of these opinions fascinate me, I don't think it is all that necessary for me to gain that much clarity about the fate of my soul just yet. -pretty cryptic, no? Being so young, I think with time and study, and personal contemplating, the answer to this question will eventually reveal itself. I think there is only so much a person can come to based on analysis, at some point your own emotions and your "gut" feelings take over. I feel that no person can really say that emotional decision about the after-life is wrong, because what is true in terms of belief for one person is completely relative to them.

Being the daughter of a Catholic mother, I grew up with the hopefulness in mind that one day I would be reunited with loved ones in a "heaven" of sorts. While that might seem lofty to some Buddhists, I think once you have been met with that idea and have had it in the back of your thoughts for a long period of time, meanwhile, observing death around you: it would be very hard for any person to let go of that kind of faith. When a person's faith is so personal, so emotional, and so complicated, I wonder how necessary it is to completely "decide" all things about it. Is it really necessary to follow one faith, or any faith at all, and wouldn't it be completely possible for someone to instead take parts from different faiths to make up their personal beliefs? Who is to say that you must impose any rules upon yourself to completely define your faith into a specific category? As someone that has found Buddhism very useful, and directly psychologically helpful to them; the thought of one's identity being so subject to future decay is supremely depressing, at best.

Sarah

Works Cited

"How the Major Religions View the Afterlife: Buddhism." Unexplained Stuff. Advameg Inc., 2008. Web. 28 Mar. 2013.

O'Brien, Barbara. "Skandha." About. About.com, 2013. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.

Stone, Greg. "The Buddhist Paradox." Visit Under the Tree. Pink Unicorn Publishing, 2013. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.

Thera, Narada. "Buddhism in a Nutshell." Buddhanet. Buddha Dharma Education Association, 1996-2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.

1 comment:

  1. Fabulous post. My only comment here would be to question whether you *are* the same person you were yesterday? Having had many years of calm before this one, I'd have said the same thing as you do: "I haven't changed!" But in subtle ways I think people change every day. We can change physically (get more gray hair, like I have; gain weight; change jobs or take different classes). We can also change mentally and emotionally. For example, the things that used to bother us don't anymore, like my husband's snoring. But some things that I thought I had a handle on, like my ever-evolving understandings of the world, continue to change. And that changes me.

    So I don't think there is a significant difference between yesterday and today, and while it might not be perceptible, it's there. Also, here's an idea for another post: do you consider yourself Buddhist with a hint of Catholicism? Can one person believe in multiple spiritual paths concurrently?

    ReplyDelete