news

more

Can We Reinvent Ourselves? A Buddhist View

We can, if we pay attention

16th July 2018
| Senior Philosophy Lecturer at the Australian National University specialising in Buddhist moral psychology and metaethics.
1,396 words
Read time: approx. 7 mins

Is self-transformation possible and, if so, how can it be achieved? 

An initial reading of Buddhist philosophy might suggest a simple but perhaps unilluminating answer. The Buddha taught that attachment to self is a central cause of human suffering. It underpins many of the psychological states that detract from our happiness and that we might wish to change. However, the Buddha also taught that attachment to self is rooted in ignorance because there is, in fact, no self. Taken at face value, this might seem to suggest that self-transformation is not possible because there is no self to transform. You can’t change what’s not there.

While there is a seed of truth to this, it is too simplistic to see it this way. When the Buddha taught that there is no self, he meant to deny that we have a permanent, unchanging essence. The idea is that if we analyse ourselves into all of our constituent parts (our physical bodies, beliefs, desires, memories, dispositions and all other psychological tendencies) we will find that each is impermanent; none remains the same across a lifetime. And we will not find a single substance underlying these components that unifies them all as aspects of ‘me’. 

Bronwyn Finnigan
16th July 2018

Continue reading

Enjoy unlimited access to the world's leading thinkers.

Start by exploring our subscription options or joining our mailing list today.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Log in

Join the conversation

Stefan Schindler 17 July 2018

An insightful, pragmatic, healing, holistic, and beautifully written article, bridging East and West, and to which I add my support with the following ... A PASSION FOR COMPASSION ... HOW BUDDHA ANTICIPATES SOCRATES RUMI, ECKHART, JUNG, MASLOW, EMERSON, WILLIAM BLAKE, WORDSWORTH, EINSTEIN, TOLSTOY, AND TAGORE ... Nirvana IN samsara is the goal. It is not a question of extinguishing the flame of life. It is a question of extinguishing the fires of craving, clinging, ignorance, selfishness, and delusion that cause so much suffering in life. Samsara is not the problem. The problem is the failure to actualize nirvana IN samsara. Buddha smiles because he knows (and teaches) that the point of life is to be joyful, thankful, peaceful, kind, compassionate, creative, and evolving. Life is creative evolution. And karma is the teacher. Buddhism is the path from the love of wisdom to the wisdom of love. Empty OF the fires of craving, clinging, hostility, greed, and delusion, one becomes free FOR the joys of the golden glow of Brother Sun and the silver luminescence of Sister Moon. And death is our wisest adviser, because, as Buddha taught, each day is precious, each life is sacred, and each hour a chance to experience the infinite in the finite, the universal in the particular, the eternal in the momentary. See the lilies of the field, how they grow. And now you know. And isn't that a nice fandango. To which I would also like to add this ... In a conversational sutra, Buddha says his teachings are neither philosophy nor doctrine, but rather like a finger pointing to the moon (and thus it would be a mistake to cling to the finger and miss the moon). On the other hand, in The Vimalakirti Sutra (also conversational), Buddha asks: "Is it the fault of the sun and the moon that the blind do not see them?" Which is one way of saying ... Is it the fault of the Buddha that people who are ignorant, dogmatic, deluded and foolish do not recognize the philosophic profundity of The Four Noble Truths? My point is this ... It is a mistake to think solely in terms of either/or; as if, for example, the truth of Tao is merely yin and not also yang. Buddhism both is and is not a philosophy; both is and is not a doctrine (or set of doctrines) -- in precisely the same way that Buddha teaches that the "self" both does and does not exist. This is a paradox, not a contradiction. The "self" is not an independently existing, unchanging "thing." At the same time (and necessarily true because of karma), there is no escape from individual responsibility. To put it another way ... Unity has primacy over separateness; but diversity is the spice of life. Paradoxical thinking is dialectical thinking -- a willingness to see the truth of opposites when they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. So much depends on nuance; on seeing the whole, not just a part or merely one side. If philosophy is the journey from the love of wisdom to the wisdom of love, then Buddhism is indeed a philosophy. And its existential, ontological, and ethical "doctrines," while not to be taken dogmatically, are nevertheless poignant descriptions of the human condition, and potent suggestions for right living and Awakening -- both individually and socially.