To explore the nature of the self, it
is crucial to define what we refer to when we speak of the self. In philosopher
David Lund’s chapter on the self in Making
Sense of It All, he explains that the self is not one’s name, qualities,
body, or brain. Rather, the self is what a human being refers to when they use the
word “I”; the self, then, according to Lund, is the subject of consciousness
and experience—or nothing at all.
Lund fails to take the leap of
faith required to eliminate the latter possibility, even though it is not only
illogical but impossible for him to state with any conviction that the self is
nothing at all. For just as Descartes proved the existence of his own self by
proclaiming, “I think, therefore I am,” so Lund affirms that his self exists by
making any statement at all. Even to declare that “I am nothing” proves, if
only to oneself, that a certain self exists to utter the phrase.
Thus, the self must be the
subject of consciousness and experience. Further, the self must also be the
sense of being the owner of experiences and the agent of actions. I will relate
these concepts to those used in the religion of Hinduism—not because I believe
this religion in particular to be accurate, but because I believe it expresses
the fundamental and universal truths of all religions most eloquently and
succinctly.
In Hinduism, the self is called
Atman, and everything but Atman is called Brahman. Rather than
signifying an actual thing, Atman is only a concept. The goal of Hinduism is to
destroy this illusion—in other words, to realize that one is not
separate or individual from the universe, but that one and the universe (i.e.
Atman and Brahman) are identical.
David Gordon White, Professor of
Religious Studies at U.C. Santa Barbara, visualizes Atman as Brahman in a pot,
relating that all one needs to do to experience the fundamental unity of the
universe is to “break the pot”. Thus, in a metaphysical sense, the self does
not exist. This statement, however, holds only as much truth as the statement
“time does not exist.” That is to say, although objectively the self may be an
illusion, it is a universal illusion which cannot simply be dismissed as
completely nonexistent—for the sense of self exists, just as time does, in the
minds of men. As long as there are men living with the illusion of the self, we
have an obligation to determine the source of this illusion and to explore its
implications for other major philosophical questions.
Since it is neither the body nor
the brain, the self must be of an immaterial essence. This is the most crucial
property of the self, for it liberates it from the constraints of physical
existence while linking it to other philosophical and religious concepts, most
notably the soul.
The soul is defined as “the
spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.”
Alternate definitions include “the animating principle or actuating cause” and
“the central or integral part; the vital core.” All of these definitions fit
our ideas and concepts of the self—but we should hesitate from calling them
identical.
The self is widely regarded as
unique to each individual; though its nature (which may be the soul) is always
the same, the actual self varies from being to being. The soul, however, is the
part of Atman that is identical with Brahman. Thus, each being’s soul is
identical, while each being’s self is unique.
In other words, the soul is a
unifying principle which is dressed in a different ‘costume’ for each living
being. The soul, then, is the living essence, wrapped in a self of conscious
experience. The self is, as described before, an imaginary but necessary
concept.
The soul illuminates what is
similar among humans in a culture preoccupied with differences. Consequently,
our conclusions about the self have immeasurable moral implications: that,
since we are all essentially the same, what is bad for one is bad for all. And
clearly, as we are all subjects of experience, what is bad for one is
suffering. Put another way, compassion is born from the self, and comes into
play when one soul recognizes itself in another.
Leo Tolstoy expresses this concept
most elegantly in his “Letter to a Hindu,” a document that would prove
instrumental in Gandhi’s dedication to nonresistance. Speaking of the essence
which we call the soul, Tolstoy writes:
“Very early—thousands of years
before our time—amid this life based on coercion, one and the same thought
constantly emerged among different nations, namely, that in every individual a
spiritual element is manifested that gives life to all that exists, and that
this spiritual element strives to unite with everything of a like nature to
itself, and attains this aim through love.”
Tolstoy goes on to reason that
since this same concept sprung up at different times and in different places,
and “found expression in Brahmanism, Judaism, Mazdaism (the teachings of
Zoroaster), in Taoism, Confucianism, and in the writings of the Greek and Roman
sages, as well as in Christianity and Mohammedanism”, that it is “inherent in
human nature and contains the truth”. Extrapolating from this concept, we can deduce
that the only law of life is love, since when we act toward another, we are
essentially acting toward ourselves.
The question of death is also essentially
a question of the self. If man is entirely physical, then upon his death he
will cease to exist forever. If, however, there exists in man an immaterial
essence—which by now we have identified to be the soul—then this essence may
live on. But what happens to this essence after death? If we are to believe
religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, the soul re-enters the “great soul”
from which it came, whether this essence is in the world of phenomena or some
other realm. Even modern scholars have expressed faith in this notion, notably
Carl Jung:
“Individual consciousness is only
the flower and the fruit of a season, sprung from the perennial rhizome beneath
the earth; and it would find itself in better accord with the truth if it took
the existence of the rhizome into its calculations. For the root matter is the
mother of all things.”
Finally, it is crucial to explore
the connection of the self and soul to our concept of God. If everything in the
universe sprang from the condensed point of all matter and energy at the
beginning of the universe in the Big Bang, then it follows that the soul must
have as well. But if the soul is immaterial, then it must be a form of energy,
not matter. Since no matter or energy can be created or destroyed, the soul is
essentially the part of each living being that “links back” to God. Perhaps
this is why the soul is often regarded as divine. It comes as no surprise that
the soul is sometimes referred to as the “spark of life”—the element that
transforms inert matter into a living, breathing creature.
Our exploration of the self has
perhaps left us with more questions than answers. But the goal of philosophy
has never been to arrive at a final explanation; rather, it has been to chip
away at the great mass of uncertainty, using the discarded pieces to build a
better understanding of our world. Our concepts have certainly helped us to
further explore other questions of philosophy—the progress of which we may use
in the future to further explore the self.
There is no great and
no small
To the Soul that
maketh all:
And where it cometh,
all things are;
And it cometh everywhere.
—Ralph Waldo Emerson
No comments:
Post a Comment