Nagasena: There is no self - Essay Example

Nagasena: There is no self Introduction Nagasena philosophy is found in Buddhist scripture “The Questions of King Melinda” with various angles of understanding the concept of human existence. This scripture is made up of stimulating and exciting modern arguments that relate to personal identity. In this respect, Nagasena teachings defy the concept of a self, a situation where an integrated personal identity develops with time. “The Questions of King Melinda” address a discussion between Nagasena and King Milinda touching on common issues or personal identity. The discussion leads Nagasena to state that a person continuously changes going through life circumstances and despite the fact that certain features of the self are retained; one is not the same and therefore, does not endure with time. In this scenario, his teachings indicate that humans do not have a soul or self but instead they have unconscious perceptions. It is evident that Nagasena philosophy points towards the idea that human beings do not have an enduring soul, which relates to Buddhist theory concept while other arguments reject this concept (Davids 75). Through the chariot comparison, it is clear that Nagasena believes that a person is not only a part of the body, or even anything from outside of the body. Nagasena begins by explaining to Milnda that that there is no soul in the body. For instance, the name, “Nagasena” does not stand for the hair, eyes, nose, and neither the nails on his body. It does not even stand for his ideas, feelings, perceptions, or desires and not even a combination of all these. In other words, the name “Nagasena” does not stand for any apparent denotation and this puzzles the king (Davids 75). Nagasena then introduces the comparison or analogy of the chariot that King Milinda had been riding. He cites that one cannot understand precisely what the chariot is in reality by saying its name. He argues that the chariot does not represent the wheels, the poles, axle, the rope, or even the yoke that has designed it. However, this does not mean that the chariot does not exist since it wholly depends on the poles, wheel, ropes, yoke, and all things that designed it. All these items make up this chariot and therefore, it is refereed by this denotation. In addition, Negasena states that this is similar to him as “Nagasena” where all body parts or organic matter that make up his body create this denotation. In conclusion, he says this person or object however, cannot be clarified and in this essence there is no self (Davids 76). Nagasena states that despite the fact that a person can be identified using a precise name, there exists no enduring self or soul. He further added that even if people can use many things to signify themselves for example say “this is my body, or hair, or memories” they do not indicate existence of self. This is because these things are inconstant and ultimately they fall apart. These things would go on forever if and be under the power of the human body. But this is not the case, people are just the organic manner in the body and therefore, do not have a lasting soul (Davids 76). The Buddhist theory of the Soul The teachings of Buddhism in regards to human thought have been known to discard the concept of an existing soul, self, or what is called “Atman.” Buddha declared that the issue of soul or Atman is a deceitful imaginary concept with no facts and generates dangerous thoughts of “me” or “mine” which is a selfish longing, hunger, vanity, and arrogance among other problems. The Buddhist concepts disdain notions of self-protection and preservation because they are indicators of selfishness. In self-protection, people create for themselves a God with whom they depend for their needs of security. On the other hand, self-preservation is a concept of having an immortal soul that exists forever. This is highly revoked in Buddhism and these thoughts are said to be false and misguiding (Davids 78). In addition, Buddha clarified that what humans perceive as something eternal in the body is simply a mixture of physical and psychological forces or aggregates (skandhas) which are composed of substance (rupakkhandha), feeling (vedanakkhandha), and perception (sannakkhandha), psychological constructions (samkharakkhandha) as well as consciousness (vinnanakkhandha). These are forces that work together in an unstable condition of swift change and are not similar in two successive instances. In addition, they are forces that constitute psycho-physical life and Buddha in his analysis or study did not come across an eternal soul. Many teaching indicate that the soul or self is consciousness but Buddha declared that consciousness is dependent on substance, feeling, perception, psychological constructions, and most importantly it cannot survive on its own (Sion 246). It is evident from the theory that Buddha affirmed that the body does not indicate the self or the soul in any way. In essence, the body (matter), perception, feelings, psychological formations, and consciousness are not the soul and therefore, people should not hold value on them. All features of an individual are temporary and short lived and there is nothing that exists after the five aggregates upon death. When one understands this, freedom is achieved and begins to live a life of holiness leading to the death and then rebirth (Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta). It is important to detach one from the five aggregates to get clarity and freedom of an enlightened individual. This is because there is no self or soul after the aggregates and it is meaningless to hold on to them as Buddha teaches (Sion 247). John Dewey is a philosopher who takes a similar approach as Negasema in the issue of personal identity. He argues that there is no designed self but instead there is a stream of complex, uneven, opposing outlooks that slowly combine and take up a particular stability of configuration. An individual is made up of behaviors and habits that Buddha refers to as aggregates which when thoroughly understood undermine the concept of egoism and altruism. In egoism, an action is taken which is meant to generate returns or security to a self while altruism is a self that is continuously changing and overcoming all levels of both selfish and altruistic (Davids 78). Opponents of no self or Soul Other arguments oppose the idea of “no self” which is largely because of the concept of rebirth in Buddhism. This is because the issue of rebirth contradictions the idea of death and rise after the body ceases to exist. According to the teachings of Buddhism, when a person dies one is either reborn and gets life through another body or enters the state of nirvana. Nirvana is a condition where a person transcendent into a state that does not have suffering, pain, with no feeling of self, and achieves freedom of the soul through karma. It is clear that only Buddha’s reach this state after they have gained enlightenment in regard to these teachings (King 81). The doctrines of no soul or no self in Buddhism indicate that a person takes another body after entering the next life which differs with classical Indian ideas. Ideally, Buddha related this incident to lighting numerous candles using the flame from the previous candle. Despite the fact that every flame is basically related to the previous one, it is definitely not the same one. Through scholarly articles it is clear that Buddhism concepts refer to rebirth as a kind of “transmigration”. In addition, through nirvana one is “extinguished” similar to how a fire dies when fuel runs out. Buddha states that nirvana is perceived as a place with nothing but what is conceived by the mind. Opponents of no self argue that if there is no soul, how is it possible to have an afterlife upon death? Many wonder what the place is like if the person has no soul and the body aggregates die (Craig 63). It is evident that when a person dies the body perishes but the spirit lives on through the process of attachment (assuming another body). The place that one is reborn is determined by past and buildup of good or bad actions, and the consequent karma is dependent solely of past actions. There are six kingdoms in which a person can be reborn including heaven, as a person, Asura, famished ghost, animal, or even hell. The harshness of one’s karmic activities determine the place of rebirth however, Buddhist argue none of these kingdoms are permanent. One does not stay in one pace forever and therefore, life goes on in other forms without a doubt. Opponents of no soul therefore, indicate that the theory is wrong to support an afterlife if an individual has no soul. The Buddhist theory clearly states there are various locations of existence and part of them are like heaven or hells that are common in other religions. However, they insist that these locations are not for eternal rest but a stage of continuing a journal through one’s consciousness. Many opponents of no self are largely puzzled by these deductions since it appears like a soul goes to the next life (Craig 63). It makes more sense that a soul exists within the human beings and not just the essence of consciousness. In reality, the soul exists which is able to detect these feelings, emotions and mental constructions within the human body. Human beings have a self that is responsible for all other sensations and feeling and in addition survives upon death. It is like a spirit that leaves the body once the other parts ceases existing and lives eternally. This makes sense because even Buddhist believes in an afterlife and this would be impossible without the essence of a soul. Eternal life to other kingdoms like heaven and hell that Buddhist believes in can only be possible if a soul exists in human beings (King 81). Conclusion The “Questions of King Milinda” is a philosophy by Nagasena which tries to understand the concept of human identity. Through his philosophies, Nagasena believes that human beings have no soul or self and this is among the foundations of Buddhist religion. The concept clarifies that the human body is made up of parts like hairs, eyes, and legs but these do not mean that a person has an enduring soul. This is clear from Buddhism theory and even the philosopher John Dewey supports this notion. Opponents of the concept of no soul however, state this is impossible because there is an afterlife when humans die just as it is indicated in rebirth of Buddhism. Works Cited Craig, Edward. Philosophy. Asheville, North Carolina: Sterling Publishing Company, Inc., 2009. Print. Davids, Rhys. Early Buddhism. Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 1998. Print. Davids, Tomash. The Questions of King Milinda. 1890. Reprint. Hong Kong: Forgotten Books, 2013. Print. King, Richard. Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 1999. Print. Sion, Avi. Logical and Spiritual Reflections. Pennsylvania: Avi Sion, 2009. Print. Read More