Contrast Hume's bundle theory in relation to the self with Buddhism's view of an impermanent self

In this essay, I will start by explicating Hume’s bundle theory. His skeptical investigations led him to the understanding that the mind is “nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in perpetual flux and movement” (Hume, 1739, 252). His basis for investigation was observation and experiment within his own mind, where he found these perceptions lacked in cohesion, related only by resemblance, contiguity and causation. This meant that he could not find a coherent self or an “I”, although he suggested a “natural propension…to imagine simplicity and identity” within the mind (Hume, 1739, 253). Accordingly, he argued that the imagination provides us with beliefs that we just cannot give up, despite the skeptical challenge to their rationality. I will then explain Buddha’s similar idea of doubting a coherent “I”, calling our sense of self an illusion that is nothing more than perceptions and emotions. The Five Skandhas are what make up this sense of self. They aren’t qualities that belong to an autonomous self but are empty, giving rise to a ‘small self’ that is the egoic mind. The doctrine of ‘no self’ is called anatman or anatta. The Buddha wanted to show that by seeing through this illusion of the self, we can go beyond it. I will move on to explain possible differences and similarities between Hume and Buddhism. Then as a contrast, I will put forward Baier’s views on Hume’s sympathy and self-trust. In conclusion, I will argue that in order to function in the world, we need a sense of self, and that in Hume’s terms, nature has provided us with an imagination for this purpose. Buddhism also suggests the idea of a developed self, despite needing to look beyond it for enlightenment. It can appear frightening to imagine we are only a bundle of perceptions instead of a solid self, but both philosophies revere a rich and varied inner landscape capable of empathy and compassion. Both lean towards humans understanding the impermanence of life and the transitory nature of the mind, yet point towards how we can function optimally in the world, with what nature has given us.

Hume argues that the self is a bundle of impressions, perceptions and memory, loosely knitted together to provide the idea of a self, but when he observed that he could not actually find this self via introspection, he argued that there is no permanent “I” that endures over time, such as the idea of a soul. He argues for there to be a constant, solid self, there should be an impression that continues the same, for the whole of our lives. He said, “every idea is derived from preceding impressions and we have no impression of self, as something simple and individual” (Hume, 1739, 633). ‘Impressions’ are feelings, senses, sensations, or reflections that are perceived from the environment and are dependent on physical and natural causes, such as pains and pleasures. “The idea, or rather impression of ourselves is always intimately present with us” (Hume, 1739, 317) and “our senses offer not their impressions as the images of something distinct, or independent, and external” (Hume, 1739, 189) meaning that we only have our direct first personal experience of impressions, and cannot necessarily say that there is an external world. Hume focuses on human nature and how we form certain habits in assuming the causal relations of what we experience such as the sun rising in the morning, or fire being hot, but we cannot ground this belief of causation as there is nothing to point at that underpins it. Accordingly, that “mankind are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions” (Hume, 1739, 252) left him “affrighted and confounded with that forelorn solitude” and at a time he felt he couldn’t “mingle and unite in society” because of this understanding (Hume, 1739, 264). He goes on to explore the relevance of belief and imagination in relation to our natural sense of self. He found it necessary for imagination or belief to provide humans with a more solid sense of identity, so that they are able to live and carry out activities. He suggests this arises naturally, as “we are apt to imagine something unknown and mysterious, connecting the parts” (Hume, 1739, 254). It is resemblance, contiguity, and causation that identity depends as they produce an easy transition of ideas, so the idea of personal identity arises as thought progresses along a stream of ideas. Ultimately, Hume thought experience was enough for humans, and that when you reject the ideas of metaphysics, God, or a coherent “I” or soul, you can still enjoy yourself with friends, “play a game of backgammon”, “converse” and “be merry” and the problems of philosophy will still be there (Hume, 1739, 269). This lighthearted approach was important to Hume, because it elucidates that we have this part of our nature that is natural, in need of fun and friendship. However, there is the rational part that wants to explore philosophy and search for answers. Therefore “identity is nothing really belonging to these different perceptions, and uniting them together, but is merely a quality, which we attribute to them, because of the union of their ideas in the imagination, when we reflect upon them” (Hume, 1739, 260). So, experience from the past and habit that determines us to expect the same in future, operate on the imagination, and ideas are formed. The succession of perceptions constitutes our self, and without imagination, we couldn’t carry out our ideas further than our senses.

In comparison, in c. 5th C BCE, Buddha spoke of a type of ‘bundle’ theory called, the Five Skandhas, and they describe the collection of components that create an individual (or an illusory self) and how they experience the world. An individual person is a process of the Five Skandhas. The first truth (of the Four Noble Truths) is ‘Dukkha’ that life is suffering, ‘impermanent’ or ‘conditioned’. The Buddha taught that the Skandhas were “Dukkha” as humans are dependent on them. The first is form or matter (Rupa in Sanskrit) that is solidity, fluidity, heat and motion. In addition it refers to parts of the body such as eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, visible form, sound, odour, taste, and tangible things. The second is sensation (Vedana) that is a physical or mental sensation when the six faculties contact the external world (eye with visible form, ear with sound, nose with odour, tongue with taste, body with tangible things and mind (‘manas’) with ideas or thoughts or feelings. In Buddhism, mind is a sense organ or faculty, like an eye or an ear, not like a spirit or soul. Third is perception (Samjna) that is the ability to recognise and conceptualise through association with what we already know, and the word means ‘knowledge that puts together’. Fourth is mental formations (Samskara) and includes actions, good or bad, habits and prejudices. In addition, the virtues and vices of attention, conscientiousness, pride, desire, and many other mental states. Karma is also relevant to the fourth Skandha. Fifth is consciousness (Vijnana) and is awareness of, or sensitivity to an object, but without conceptualisation. Once there is awareness, the third Skandha might recognise the object and assign a concept-value to it, and the fourth Skandha (of habits or prejudices) might react with some mental formation. The fifth Skandha is explained in some Buddhist terms as the underpinning that ties the experience of life together (O’Brien, 2020). The Skandhas are not ‘self’ and they are described as empty because there is not a self that possesses them or a permanent self that underpins them. They create a conditioned mind or ‘small self’. This core doctrine of Buddhism is of no-self and is called anatman or anatta. Buddha intended that people look through the illusion of a concrete self in order to transcend it and not cling to mental formations, such as a negative belief, that can be destructive. According to Mahayana Buddhism, if all beings understand they don’t have a ‘self’ they will know shunyata (meaning ‘emptiness’) and can join together in compassion because they are not truly separate.

In terms of similarities between Hume and Buddha’s philosophies, both say that there is no coherent self or “I” that is unchanging and permanent. Buddha found this absence of self as he meditated beneath the Bodhi tree where he gained enlightenment. Prior to this he undertook extreme ascetic practices but rejected them for meditation. Hume suffered too, as he searched for meaning and found himself, “some strange uncouth monster…utterly abandoned and disconsolate” (Hume, 1739 : 264) and he described it like a storm that beat upon him from every side. He was diagnosed with the “Disease of the Learned” and prescribed pills. Both individuals experienced great suffering to accept the ideas that they found within the lack of self. As their theories developed, both Hume and Buddha point towards how humans can make best use of what nature has given us. Although both say there is no coherent “I”, Hume talks of the imaginative capacities and belief tying together the bundle of perceptions and emotions so that people can live their lives as they want to. Similarly, Buddha wanted to say that an enlightened being has an empirical self that is highly developed. This self is citta (one’s mindset or emotional nature). The early Buddhist Suttas, say that ‘great self’ is a mind which is unaffected by external influences or it’s own changing thoughts and emotions, steady, with self-control and directed towards nibbana and a ‘self-like’ state. For Hume, the imagination or natural part of the self, given by “nature herself” that “cures [him] of this philosophical melancholy” (Hume, 1739 : 269) is what allows the person to unify the differing impressions and perceptions, giving a sense of stability to the person, despite lacking a ‘self’, allowing him to relax. In Buddhism, this developed self would have sympathy towards others, which is something Hume refers to when he says humans can see themselves in another, and can form an impression of what they may feel and he calls this ‘sympathy’ although he means it more like empathy. Similarly, Buddhism considers compassion a cornerstone of its philosophy and it is not just centred on individual experience but about gaining a sense of interconnectedness. It is in the dissolving of the identity of self that Buddhists believe one can overcome the sense of separateness and division and experience true compassion. Whilst Hume doesn’t talk in the same way, he does consider that emotions underpin morality in a similar way to how Buddhism rates emotions over rationality. In terms of the Skandhas and Hume, there are similarities in that Hume refers to senses that are reflected in the first Skanha of form or matter. Impressions could be related to the second Skandha, that is a mental sensation caused by something external. Hume refers to ideas, that appear similar to the third Skandha of perception, that conceptualise experience. The fourth Skandha is mental formations that could be likened to Hume’s habits or customs and other mental states such as his natural virtues of benevolence, charity and serenity. The fifth Skandha of consciousness in Buddhism is a base that ties all of experience together, and this could be Hume’s explanation of how ‘imagination’ causes the train of thought to be tied together.

Although there are interesting similarities between Hume and the Skandhas, there are also major differences. The fourth Skandha of mental formations is associated with ‘karma’ that is to do with rebirth. The word means ‘action’ or ‘deed’ and is a spiritual idea of cause and effect where deeds (causes) influence the future for the person (effects). If one can accumulate good karma, Buddhism says they will be re-born in to more favourable conditions. Hume does write about possibilities for the immortality of the soul but it is not a part of his philosophy as it is within Buddhism, as he rejects the ideas. However, there is not scope within this essay to explore this further. Another difference is that Buddhism says that a unique identity can lead to problems to do with being self-centred, or full of destructive emotions, and that if you accept the idea of ‘no-self’ you can be liberated from this rather than remaining in ignorance. However, on the contrary, Hume is relieved when he states that the self is supported by beliefs and imagination, as this means he can regain a sense of balance, enjoy a game of backgammon, and also study philosophy when he feels a natural propensity to do so. He understood that he needed solace from philosophy at times, that can “appear so cold, and strained and ridiculous, that I cannot find it in my heart to enter into them [philosophical studies] any farther”. He wanted the best of both parts, that is a search for understanding but also to experience all that being human has to offer, including his “animal spirits and passions” (Hume, 1739, 269). Accordingly, he is not proposing a spiritual philosophy for transcending the self and developing good karma for the purpose of re-birth, but instead he is exploring the possibilities of human nature in terms of how we are natural and rational beings at the same time. Buddhism’s goal is to head towards enlightenment, but for Hume, valuing experience is enough despite the two in strong agreement on the ‘no self theory’. Hume is attempting to provide a scientific account of how the mind works, but Buddha is looking for an ethical system that can save people from suffering. Whereas Buddha asks people to meditate to find that the self is an illusion, Hume asks that we run through inductive reasoning to observe our minds. So, Hume’s philosophy does incorporate moral sentiments including sympathy towards others and the propensity to try to understand what it’s like to be someone else, but his philosophy does not reach as far as Buddhist views, that imply an increase of compassionate abilities, through letting go of the self and connecting with others.

By way of contrast, Baier’s research turns towards matters to do with self-trust and distrust in relation to Hume’s sympathy. Baier argues that “one seems to need to split the self in two” (Baier, 2010, 189) where one part is trusting oneself and the other part is trusted. We “trust our sense impressions, and…trust ourselves as sensors, interpretors and makers of inferences about our environment (Baier, 2010 : 203). Baier argues that we can count on ourselves to trust those abilities just mentioned, but do not trust ourselves because we are counting on ourselves, that she finds absurd. I am inclined to agree that trusting the senses is acceptable but sometimes we may get it wrong, and need to double check something. We cannot use a layer of disproportionate pressure that says, ‘because I am counting on myself as a sensor I will trust my senses’. We should have appropriate trust and understanding of our own mind, considering any limitations that we may have such as sight or hearing problems. This, Baier calls meta-trust, that means to have trust in our own trust. Accordingly, we need to have the correct degree of what Hume would call sympathy (closer to empathy) towards ourselves to know what our limits are. We can “let our sympathy be a sounding board for their self-trust or self-distrust” [of others in our environment] such as when an elderly person is worried to climb a ladder. It would be misplaced sympathy to encourage them to do so, and instead it is wise to sympathise with their self-distrust (Baier, 2020 : 211). As we gain experience throughout life, we gain meta-trust, which informs us who to trust, and what parts of ourselves to trust. In addition, we learn who we can rely on to give us sympathy towards our own trust or distrust, that is balanced and appropriate. Through trust of the basic abilities in our own minds, we can navigate the world with as little self-deception as possible and more awareness and connection with others through sympathy.

In conclusion, Hume’s exploration of self finds through empirical scepticism that there is no coherent self, and he makes a valid observation in that humans need to use both parts of themselves; the natural self and the rational self in order to make sense of the world we find ourselves in. Studying philosophy is thoroughly enjoyable but the search for self can drive one to endless questioning that at times needs to be remedied by relaxing with friends and that I do agree with. However, the elements of Buddhism that make up the philosophy can lead to a personal quest to eradicate personal suffering and increase compassion towards others and that is a worthwhile cause for a person with a seeking spirit, although may require a belief in re-birth that could be a step too far for those who wish to base themselves in the here and now only. It is possible to take some elements of Buddhist philosophy without delving in to what happens after death, such as meditation and developing a self that is steady and unaffected by external influences. Moving past the sense of a coherent “I” seems at first frightening but can move humans further towards the understanding that we are all connected and not as separate as we sometimes think. This can possibly lead to more sympathy, understanding and compassion of other’s positions. Baier highlights that Hume’s sympathy can create bonds of trust between people as we can relate to their situation and display appropriate levels of sympathy of trust or distrust for certain actions, causing relationships to become stronger through it. Both philosophies highlight the difficulties of impermanence and the transitory nature of the mind, but are optimistic that it is possible to work with what nature has given us, providing solace through connecting with our natural side, as in Hume, or liberation from suffering, through Buddhist meditation and insight in to the illusion of self.

Bibliography

Hume, David, edited by L A Selby-Bigge, 1739, Treatise of Human Nature, Clarendon Press, Oxford

Baier, Annette. Reflections on How We Live, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/anglia/detail.action?docID=472191. Created from anglia on 2020-07-31 04:42:49

Pitson, Tony, and Tony Pitson. Hume's Philosophy of the Self, Taylor & Francis Group, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/anglia/detail.action?docID=241920. Created from anglia on 2020-07-31 05:04:40

O'Brien, Barbara. "The Buddhist Teachings of Self and No-Self." Learn Religions, Feb. 11, 2020, learnreligions.com/what-is-the-self-450193

O'Brien, Barbara. "The Five Skandhas." Learn Religions, Feb. 11, 2020, learnreligions.com/the-skandhas-450192

O'Brien, Barbara. "Anatman: The Teaching of No Self." Learn Religions, Feb. 11, 2020, learnreligions.com/anatman-anatta-449669

Gopnik, Alison, 2015, The Atlantic, “How an 18th-century philosopher helped me solve my midlife crisis”. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/how-david-hume-helped-me-solve-my-midlife-crisis/403195/