Shantideva and Personal Identiy

[Topsy_1996]

So I did my practice exam a couple of weeks ago and the was a question on Shantideva, and I was thinking who the heck is this guy? When I got out of the exam I was asking my classmates and they didn't have a clue either, I thought we never learned about him. turns out my teacher briefly mentioned him just before the Identity SAC but didn't go into detail. So now were trying to cover that topic quickly before the exam.

So my question is: What is Shantideva's stance on personal identity? I know Nagasena argues that there is no self because we are changing all the time but what does Shantideva say? I've read somewhere in the text that self is an illusion but can someone please expand on that? I'm having trouble figuring it out. :/

[Headphones]

Shantideva's text is called 'The Bodhicaryavatara' - it's after Nagasena's 'Questions of King Milinda' in the textbook. As far as I'm aware, Shantideva's stance on personal identity is the same as Nagasena's - aligned with Buddhist thought (correct me if I'm wrong).

Shantideva does argue that the self is illusory, and therefore argues that if we have no distinct self that is real - we are no more or less important than anyone else's self. In other words, preventing suffering and seeking to bringing happiness to everyone (yourself and others) equally is the crux of Shantideva's thought.

[Topsy_1996]

Thanks! That pretty much along the line I was thinking but I wanted to double check in case I was wrong and my teacher is on holiday at the moment so I couldn't ask her.

[slothpomba]

...argues that there is no self because we are changing all the time

... I've read somewhere in the text that self is an illusion

(Just a warning, i'm not familiar with VCE philosophy or these *particular* authors)

These two things are one in the same, they are flip-sides of the same coin. I read through "The Bodhicaryavatara" (only half way) and on the surface, there is very little to do with the self (there is on a deeper, more obscure layer but not needed for you).

He seems to be an orthodox Mahayana Buddhist. Like all orthodox Buddhists, he holds a similar position, the self is illusory and does not exist. It is hard to explain fully using English words but basically, everything in the universe is in a constant state of flux, this is one reason why everything is impermanent and has no actual, permanent identity or self, including us.  Another element, both found in Buddhist and western philosophy is this: everything which has parts depends on those parts for its existence and identity and therefore if theoretically imperfect and impermanent.

In Buddhist philosophy, it's important to note it doesn't deny an empirical (scientific) existence. I can see you and measure you, i know you exist in this moment. You also have continuity of existence, a name, an address, a VCAA number. However, in each moment you are different to the last. To explode this out, think of yourself 10 years ago and 10 years in the future, in both cases you will be different from now, you might even almost seem like a different person over those time scales. That is sort of the idea that is trying to be captured.

[slothpomba]

Probably not at all useful for your work but it might help you understand a little deeper.

The idea of no-self arose as both of a reaction to Hinduism and as a reaction to Buddhist philosophy.

Hinduism: The Buddha grew up in a Hindu society, so many of his ways of viewing society originated from this. Keep in mind Buddha is a title/type of thing like doctor or professor, there are many "Buddha's". The one most people talk about is called "Shakyamuni"or "Gautama Buddha". Just like Christianity and Islam derive roots from Judaism, Buddhism and Jainism derive their roots from Hinduism. Much like Islam and Christianity in some ways were revolutionary and rejected Judaism, so was Buddhism and Hinduism.

Hinduism has this very strong idea of Atman or eternal soul. Everything has this spiritual soul substance and that's what everything really is, just a bunch of soul substance floating around. Reality is kind of illusory in a way. Everyone and everything shares the same soul(kinda), we're all one. One of a larger substance/soul/reality (Brahman). Buddhism has a radical rejection of this idea, in Buddhism it's literally called "Anatman" or without Atman, without a permanent and eternal soul. So, the idea of no self in Buddhism in part comes from a radical rejection of the idea that we have a permanent soul and a permanent identity that is one with Brahman.

No self: On the philosophical side, this is important. In a nutshell, Buddhism says we suffer because we cling to ideas and objects, we want things to stay the same in a world where everything is in constant change, we try grasp onto things but they change constantly. We want to stay alive, we want to keep our partners, if you buy a new phone you'll get disappointed once it gets scratched, etc. This idea of grasping onto constantly changing things and suffering extends even to our own existence and identity.

So, the idea of no-self and our identity being ultimately an illusion comes from a rejection of Hindu beliefs of the time AND it's just simply the logical extension of Buddhist philosophy and belief.

[Topsy_1996]

No that actually helps a lot, thanks!