How Do We Construe ‘The Self Lacks Reality’?

Abstract

Having determined that there is a commonplace assumption of self, we can move onto the question of whether we are indeed such a self: does the self we assume we are actually exist? Is it real? The first step of this enquiry will be to analyse what it could mean for this self to lack reality: the goal of this chapter. I will suggest that the self, if it lacked reality, would lack reality by virtue of its being constructed and illusory (concepts that I spend some time explaining). The analysis will then be put to the test through its application to positions of some key Western thinkers who have denied reality to the self. By referring to Western thinkers who regard the self to be constructed and illusory, we further demonstrate the relevance of this project to Western concerns: casting the self as constructed and illusory is not peculiar to Buddhism. The proposed analysis of construct and illusion will also be flexible enough to convey major differences between the Buddhist and Western accounts of ‘no-self’. It was noted in Chapter 3 that while Buddhism (on my analysis) regards boundedness (grounded in the role personal owner) as the main reason for the self’s illusory status, it does not deny reality to some further ascribed features such as unity, unbrokenness and invariability. By contrast, it will be seen that the Western counterparts (as with the orthodox Buddhist readings) do deny reality to these and other features by regarding them as constructed and illusory. There will hence be significant divergence in the extent to which the reality of self is denied by Buddhism (interpreted) and the West: a divergence not emphasised in the comparative literature.