by Maggie Wilson

Created on: September 25, 2010

Buddhist thought, for the most part can be characterized by an empirical method. That is, the tenets of Buddhism are not supposed to be taken on faith. Even the word of the Buddha himself is not sufficient for belief. One must practice the methods that the Buddha has set forth to test the tenets. Integral to Buddhist thought is the notion of Anatman or non-self. This is the idea that a person has no essence or self to their being that exists unchanged over time. A person is made up of the 5 Skandas (body, perception, feeling, volitions, and consciousness) and none of these can be said to be a self. They are in constant flux, changing from moment to moment. Furthermore, this theory is testable through introspection. If one looks within, there will be sensory perceptions, feelings, volitions and consciousness but there will be no one doing the experiencing: there will be no self. In this way, Buddhism is not a religion of doctrine and faith but instead is rooted in direct experience of one’s internal states. While Buddhism is experiential for the most part there is some peripheral dogma that seems at first glance to be in direct contradiction to the notion of Anatman. The doctrines of personal reincarnation and karma do not seem to fit well with the notion that there is ultimately no self. However, these two tenets of Buddhist thought can be reconciled if we explore the Buddhist notions of ultimate truth and conventional truth.

The Buddhists believe that there exist two types of truths; conventional truth and absolute truth. The first type of truth is simply a pragmatic tool. Conventional truth is a practical use of everyday language and it is useful but does not ultimately corresponds to reality as it is before we impose our needs and biases on it. Conversely, absolute truth describes reality as it actually is. When we talk about everyday objects such as cars, tables, chairs, etc. we are communicating on the level of conventional truth. It is useful to talk about a chair for the sake of ease of communication but ultimately there is no chair. What the Buddhist means by this is that a chair has no essence. There is no one part of it that makes it a chair. Also, impermanence, a central Buddhist concept, renders it impossible for any part of the chair to have existence over time. If everything is in constant flux how could their be anything essential to a chair? The absolute truth is that nothing lasts for even a moment. Everything is empty. Existence is fleeting

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>