Is there such a thing as a permanent, unchanging Self that exists underneath our ego and mind?

Question

In Buddhism, the argument is that people have no Self (or soul, if you are a westerner), because
1) Everything is a process; nothing is permanent.
2) Humanity is a process within the larger process, containing smaller events. We are not permanent.
3)Therefore, there is no such thing as a permanent, unchanging Self(or soul) that carries on when we die.

Is this argument true? What do the people think?

Answer 1

The quick answer is no – there is no "permanent, unchanging Self" – but the argument you give is not very good, and the issues are more subtle than a simple "yes/no" can handle.

Technically, what the Buddhist's claim is that the self is EMPTY, which is not quite the same thing as simply saying that there is "no self" at all. The self is empty of all substantial, independently existing essence, which is what we normally mean by the notion of a "self", so in this sense it is correct to say that there is "no self." In other words, there is no essential, independent substance that endures over time. Forget permanence, the self does not even survive from one moment to the next. This notion of an essential self that endures over time is an illusion of the ego-centered perspective.

This in not to say that our common sense idea of person's living for a some number of years is completely wrong. This way of thinking works fine for daily life, but it is not absolutely true. If you want to truly understand reality, you need to experience the truth that all beings are interdependent processes. We can understand this to some extent in rational terms, but ultimately our conceptual language fails us, which is why all attempts to express the truth of enlightenment get somewhat mystical and seem paradoxical at some point.

The key thing to understand about emptiness – which most people don't realize – is that it basically means the same thing as total interdependence. This does not just mean that everything is connected – like the way that you can connect two pieces of paper with a staple or glue. If you attach two pieces of paper, you still have TWO pieces of paper, that just happen to be connected. In philosophy this is called a "contingent" connection. For something to be "contingent" just means that it is not necessary. If I draw a circle on a piece of paper, it is only contingently true that the circle is drawn on the paper. I didn't necessarily have to draw the circle there, or anywhere else. But given that I drew a CIRCEL it is NECESSARILY true that the figure I drew is round, because otherwise the figure would not be a circle. A circle is necessarily round because roundness is just part of what it means to be a circle. The very identity or "essence" of the circle includes roundness as a necessary aspect of its being. When Buddhists talk about the interconnectedness of all thing, they are talking about a NECESSARY interconnectedness that is difficult (perhaps impossible) for the ordinary rational mind to fully grasp. But this is what the enlightened mind grasps in a direct, non-conceptual way. In any case, the point is that all things can only be what they are in the context of their connections to all other things. Their very essence or identity involves all these interconnections.

Buddhists are not idealist in the Western sense, but one thing you can do is imagine that you are asleep and dreaming that you have a pen in your hand. Now imagine asking questions about the independent, substantial nature of the pen "in-itself". Obviously the pen has no such nature – the dream image of the pen is what it is because of its connection to you and your process of dreaming. The pen's identity as a "thing" completely depends on you in your dreaming process. This is an example of some "thing" whose identity depends on it interconnections to other things. Most Buddhists do NOT claim that life is just a dream (like we are all in "The Matrix"), but they do claim that all things (including our "selves") are all interdependent in a way that is somewhat like the way that dream images are dependent on the dreaming process. This is what they mean by saying that all things, including our selves, are empty.

Quantum mechanics gives us some good reasons for suspecting that Buddhist notion of the emptiness of all things may be right. On David Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics, the entire universe is "entangled" in the quantum mechanical sense, thus everything is interconnected with everything else pretty much just like the Buddhists claim. Things get even more wild when you consider the interdependence of all moments of time (all moments turn out to be simultaneous), but I won't get into all of that stuff here, except to say that since each moment is interconnected with every other, we have the basis for understanding the illusion of our egos enduring over time. We are, in effect, "born" into each new moment with a full compliment of memories and our "sense of having existed over time" thanks to our connections with other moments. Obviously this idea gets way more complex than the way in which I am presenting it, but believe it or not, I'm trying to keep this answer down to a manageable length.

If you are really curious about the nature of time, you might want to take a look at my little rant about the "photon's perspective" in my answer to the question: ” The Spiritual Realm ... what about it?" which you can find by checking my profile.

Answer 2

If we could not live thinking there was something "bigger" than ourselves...or knowing that our good deeds would NEVER be for a reason...I see no reason to live...if you are finite and do not have a soul....what would be the point? Faith in the afterlife is all some people have...take that away and they might as well not be here...
I disagree with that statement....I believe in God, have seen His prayers work, have seen what Faith can do.....you are only to see the birth of a child to know that God and souls exist...
I take comfort knowing there is a "great beyond"...for my soul to carry on...

Answer 3

Is there a metaphysical sub-strata to human experience? And if so, how does this metaphysical reality differ from our own and does this reality participate in this world? Is the metaphysical sub-strata the resolution of the mystery of permanence and change? We are in territory older and more venerable than the Buddha-- perhaps you should re-consider Plato.

Answer 4

It contradicts itself, if it were not permanent then how can it be permanent and unchanging? The fact that it is a part of us and alive suggest it would have to change, you can't breath without something changing, they are smoking the Hookah pipe to much.

Answer 5

EVERYTHING changes. The self/soul changes through individual experience. As do the larger and smaller processes.

Answer 6

In psychology the part of the Self that is unchanging is one's personality. It is believed by the age of seven one's personality is fully developed and will change very little as they grow into an adult.
There are only three ways that a person can cause permenant change to their personality.
1) a traumatic event
2) drugs
3) by actively making changes in your own personality (another person can not change another persons personality)

Answer 7

The speed of light is constant; so it doesn't really change. But our perception makes everything seem to be moving.

So, in that sense, there is definitely a permanent state of the light, and on the other hand, we think it's moving....lol

Like the motion pictures, you watch a movie and you see the people moving, but in reality, they're just pictures....in motion...lol


Good luck!

Answer 8

If one gets high, that changes the way they think

If one gets depressed, that changes the way they think

If one tries to prove a point, that changes the way they think

If one tries to be someone else, that changes the way they think

Your "ego" is what? A short lived idea about the way you're currently playing a game - it changes as you change the idea of the ego.

The only constant is thought - everything else changes!

I can't ask the 'people', I can only ask a person!

Answer 9

True.

The concept of the self is based on existential statements such as "I am sitting. I am here. I am typing." These are impermanant states. "I was a student. I was a child. I was young." These too are impermanent. They were once true, but the self has changed over time.

Answer 10

In Indian Philosophy, (forgot which sch of thought) , there is an underlying 'self' i.e. the transcendental self that is unaffected by the superficial self (phenomenal) .. ?

That aside, in Buddhism, there is reincarnation..which does not seem to reconcile with the point you have mentioned?