This lecture video is about the Buddhist philosopher Vasubandhu's argument against the theory that there is a self, or some real conception of personhood.
self refers to atman, not persons. in buddhism we deny a self to persons. but the negation of persons is nihilism. this is why the buddha said persons are not the same as the aggerates nor different to them. the meaning of this is not that persons are concepts, concepts being static negations for vasubhandu dignaga etc
A person can also be a Self. If we think about our identity as something subsisting over time, we are thinking of ourselves as a Self, such that this Self constitutes our personal identity. The difference in terms is because of the difference in traditions (Indian Phil and Western Phil). So sometimes you have to use things interchangeably even if they aren't perfect in order to convey an idea to a certain audience
@@armchairprofessor4249 for instance in your example, the object that is perceived to subsist over time is the person, which is an existing momentary thing, whereas the cognitive defect of enduring is a self to the person, which doesnt exist. personal identity arises in dependence upon an existing thing, the person, not a nonexistence such as the self. in other words a self is an impossible way of existing, namely pertaining to persons.
Excellent!
i would be helpful if you could provide the ppt of this lecture specifically!
self refers to atman, not persons.
in buddhism we deny a self to persons. but the negation of persons is nihilism. this is why the buddha said persons are not the same as the aggerates nor different to them. the meaning of this is not that persons are concepts, concepts being static negations for vasubhandu dignaga etc
A person can also be a Self. If we think about our identity as something subsisting over time, we are thinking of ourselves as a Self, such that this Self constitutes our personal identity. The difference in terms is because of the difference in traditions (Indian Phil and Western Phil). So sometimes you have to use things interchangeably even if they aren't perfect in order to convey an idea to a certain audience
@@armchairprofessor4249 for instance in your example, the object that is perceived to subsist over time is the person, which is an existing momentary thing, whereas the cognitive defect of enduring is a self to the person, which doesnt exist. personal identity arises in dependence upon an existing thing, the person, not a nonexistence such as the self. in other words a self is an impossible way of existing, namely pertaining to persons.