August 22, 2026
A philosophical analysis of self-identity, comparing Descartes' cogito, David Hume's bundle theory, Buddhist no-self, and Lord Krishna's teachings in Bhagavad-gita.
Descartes' Doubts and the Cogito
Descartes sat down to demolish all of his opinions, calling into question the existence of his body, the external world, and even God. But he concluded he could not doubt his own existence: "I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."
Srila Prabhupada often used critical self-reflection to describe meditation: "What am I? Am I this body? No. Am I this finger? No, this is my finger." The search for the "I" is the beginning of self-realization.
Srila Prabhupada often used critical self-reflection to describe meditation: "What am I? Am I this body? No. Am I this finger? No, this is my finger." The search for the "I" is the beginning of self-realization.
Hume's Perceptions and the Subject-Object Flaw
David Hume famously claimed that because we have no direct experience of the self, the self does not exist, describing mankind as a "bundle or collection of different perceptions" in perpetual flux.
But this assertion is easily overturned. As philosopher Bill Vallicella noted: the reason the self does not present itself as an object of experience is because it is the subject of experience — that which is doing the experiencing.
But this assertion is easily overturned. As philosopher Bill Vallicella noted: the reason the self does not present itself as an object of experience is because it is the subject of experience — that which is doing the experiencing.
Lord Buddha and Bhagavad-gita 2.16
Buddhists who hold to the doctrine of no-self (anatta) interpret Lord Buddha's teachings as denying the self. However, in the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, Lord Buddha simply distinguishes the self from form, feeling, and consciousness. If there is no self, what is it that is liberated?
The changing implies the unchanging, and the non-permanent has no meaning without reference to the permanent. Lord Krishna declares in the Bhagavad-gita (2.16):
By Damodar Prasad Das
The changing implies the unchanging, and the non-permanent has no meaning without reference to the permanent. Lord Krishna declares in the Bhagavad-gita (2.16):
"Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [the soul] there is no change."
By Damodar Prasad Das