One of the central philosophical exercises of early Buddhism was abhidharma analysis, breaking down existence into its component parts to show that a self was not among them, to show that the self is not a thing in itself but a product of other things. Try it. One of the central philosophical exercises of early Buddhism was abhidharma analysis, breaking down existence into its component parts to show that a self was not among them. We already gave one example: material things. Most people shared the gut feeling that the self cannot be a material thing. But why? What are the characteristics, first, of a self and, second, of material things, such that the first cannot be the second? After you’ve answered this, see if you can figure out what other kinds or categories of existence, in addition to material things, the self might be instead. Can you come up with a complete list? The groups with the most convincing break-down on March 2 will get extra credit.

Add your group's name to this page and link it to a new page for you to work on.

Quick question about the Buddhist use of this exercise. Is this analysis one that Buddhists continually do? Are they continually thinking about reality in this way, or is there a point where they decide, there is no self and so I do not need to keep looking for a self? There must be a point in which they say there is no self, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they stop examining life to see if there is one.

Buddhists continue to pursue this exercise in various forms in the older schools, just as scientists now continue to pursue a more detailed undeerstanding of matter. There is a reason why some of the newer schools decided to take a different approach, which we will see when we come to it. Paul

To collaborate concepts for the "Palace of Existance" in order to conclude that the self does not exist.

Click to read this topic

Click to read this topic

Click to read this topic

Click to read this topic

Click to read this topic