What Defines Who We Are? – Modern Koans

Estimated reading time: 7 minute(s)

What Defines Who We Are?

Response:  From a Buddhist perspective this is a critical question. The Buddha asked the question and warned us that a wrong answer can be the cause of much of the dissatisfaction we experience in life. Philosophers like Descartes have struggled with this – postulating a homunculus. Of course many religions declare that the soul lies at the heart of who we are.

Some of the absurdities that we should be inclined to dispense with include solipsism, nihilism, and dualism. Solipsism is the idea that we are all that exists. While it simplifies the answer to – we are everything – it’s a dead end. Nihilism insists that nothing exists, leading to another very simple, but unhelpful answer – we don’t exist, so who cares. The last option I think should be discounted is dualism – the idea that we are a collection of matter and mind stuff. The mind stuff being the meaner when we talk about who intends, who means something when they speak, and so on. The trouble is that mind stuff is undetectable and cannot be the subject of any testable theory of mind.

The Buddhist teaching of the Mahamudra, the great embrace, provides a holistic answer to the question. We are the complimentary relationship between the world and ourselves. Perhaps this is a clever sidestepping of the question, but I think it avoids a critical failure that other, more specific answers will always trip up on.

For example, we can say that we are the sum of our parts. What do we mean by parts? Are we the collection of torso, limbs and a head? If we lose some part of our body do we become someone else? Over the course of a year, the cells making up entire organ systems die and are replaced by new ones. If we are the sum of these parts, does that mean that we are the sum of all the cells dead, alive, and yet to be born?

What about our personalities and actions? These change over time. In many ways these traits are a function of our relationship to the world. We respond to our perceptions of the world as well as to internal stimuli. This is a pretty complicated and vast definition. The who we are describing is a shifting, growing, and fading thing. Putting a clear line around what it is and isn’t is a daunting task.

The great embrace is a high level but elegant description of who we are. We are a being in relationship with the world. Functionally, we might best describe us as the universe looking back on itself.

So what do you think?  Is this a cop out answer?  Can we be more specific without introducing absurdities? Is Buddhism materialism dressed up in robes? 

I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.

Modern Koans is an ongoing series that recognizes that good questions are often more important then their answers.

The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man. ― G.K. Chesterton  Get Each Week's Modern Koan in your email box First Name:

Last Name:

Email address:

In addition to a monthly email you can also subscribe to the following weekly series:

Weekly Series:

One Minute Meditations



Tiny Drops (Photography series)



Compass Songs (My Favorite Poems)



Dialectic Two-Step



Modern Koans (interesting questions)



Sunday Morning Coming Down (Music Videos)



Relics (Timeless Republished Articles)



Say What?



Quotes



Verse Us (Poems I Write)



Meditations on Gratitude

  
If you enjoyed this post,  please like and share.

The post What Defines Who We Are? – Modern Koans appeared on Andrew Furst.