20131016

The Humanity of No-Self

According to Buddhist doctrine, the self is as artificial as a car, a house, or even money. It only exists as a concept because a Greek philosopher wrote "pneumos" when speaking about the soul and "autos" for the self.

Such abstract notions have no existence in reality nut only in the mind. As such, they have been reified, taking shape as valid concepts in religions other than Buddhism.

Even where one thinks the soul or the self is discussed in Buddhism, it is only because of confirmation biases that the higher two of the eight consciousnesses theorized by the Yogachara school of Buddhism appear to be similar, but are not.

By denying the existence of the self, Buddhism only remains true to the doctrine of no-self, in which no permanent self exists apart from the body.

Instead, it substitutes the six consciousnesses of modern Buddhism, and rarely discusses the two higher consciousnesses, lest those people who believe in a permanent soul mistake them for the self and the soul.

For those who hold firm to the concept of a permanent soul, and declare that a self exists independent of a body, also claim our humanity with its good works is due to a soul, and falsely assert that the lack of a soul is the reason for evil.

In truth, this fallacy is disproved by the fact that it is humanity's creations which may be deemed good or evil, including the pernicious fallacy called "immortal life".

Indeed, belief in immortal life is a satanism since millions of innocent lives have been sacrificed to it in the name of a Higher Power, be it Allah, G*d or Adonai. In comparison, post-modern human sacrifice to the devil has been proven again and again to be a myth.

Even without a soul, a person may be compassionate and loving, just as one may be uncaring and full of hate, depending on what has been made.

Without a soul, even an animal is capable of creating good. Is not a kitten proof of this? As well, an animal is capable of creating evil. Every time a bear comes to town, its predation is proof of this.

Likewise, what a man creates determines the good of his deed; what he creates also determines the evil of his deed.

What does this have to do with the self? We create, not because of the existence of a self nor do we act out of the goodness of our hearts because of a soul. We act because we are human, and quibbling over its origin in some permanent self or the benefit of a soul is animism.

For the existence of a soul does not make one man good and its absence, another man evil. This kind of fallacy leads to thinking the world is evil because it lacks capacity for a soul.

Yet nature itself is filled with life, and does not need one soul or many souls to exist. Since nature creates itself, and judges not itself, what good will soul be to it?

Since humanity is a vital part of nature, it follows too that humanity can do without soul, since the acts of its members may be judged good or evil without referring to soul.

As for the self, it is but a vain concept that only egocentrics would love to exist, despite not truly being the centre of the world at all.

No comments: