Contrast the Buddhist ideal of the self with Rousseau's - Essay Example

Contrast between the Buddhist ideal of the self with Rousseaus The nature of the self is considered as one of Buddha’s hardest teachings, also central to Buddhism. On the other hand, Rousseau’s teachings on the self are equally philosophical and focus on the natural goodness of human beings in their physical form. According to Buddha, “fully perceiving the nature of the self” is one among many ways of defining enlightenment (Smith 113). This paper contrasts the Buddhist ideal of the self with Jacques Rousseau’s.

The five heaps or Skandhas which makes the individual include consciousness, form, sensation, mental formations, and perception. Although the Skandhas are subject to different interpretations, generally, the first heap is the physical form; the second defines human emotions and feelings; the third human perceptions; the fourth includes human predispositions, prejudices and habits; and the fifth, consciousness. Buddha taught that the ideal self is no self. What this means is that the Skandhas are themselves empty considering that they are not qualities that are possessed by the individual.

Better stated, according to Buddhism, the ideal self (atman) comes into existence essentially when the sense world and body are subtracted. According to Buddha, when a fire is deprived of fuel leading to its extinction, the stage of Nirvana is reached. Similarly, the ideal man comes into existence when the desires and boundaries of the finite self are removed (Smith 115). The ideal self in this state is incomprehensible, inconceivable, and beyond description. On the other hand, Buddha proposed that the ideal man is one who lives midway between indulgence and asceticism.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau notes that naturally, a human being is like any other animal, motivated to action by two principles: self-preservation and pity (Rousseau 20). The difference between the two is that man has a sense of unrealized perfectibility. Naturally, according to Rousseau, man is essentially happy, has limited needs, has no reason and respects not the concept of evil and good. In other words, Rousseau postulates that the ideal self is one that independent, happy, peaceful and free; devoid of the delusions of perfectibility and harmful reasoning.

However, humans have developed and live in civil societies which present a lot of challenges isolating them from their natural selves. Simply stated, when humans are corrupted and enter civil society, they agree to leave their ideal or natural selves. It is under this condition that social inequalities continue to thrive.From the above discussion, it is clear that the Buddhist view of the ideal self is quite in contrast to Rousseau’s’. While Buddhism posits that the ideal self is no self or self devoid of finite boundaries, Rousseau claims that the ideal self exists when humans live happily, independently, peacefully and without engaging in delusions of becoming perfect and harbouring harmful thoughts.

The state of nirvana and atman describe the situation of the ideal man who is not subject to consciousness, form, sensation, mental formations, and perception. However, in Rousseau’s’ view, the ideal man is physical, has good feelings and perceptions, and is conscious of his/her actions. Works CitedRousseau, Jean-Jacques. Discourse On Inequality. Kessinger Publishing. 2004. Print. Smith, Huston. The Worlds Religions. HarperCollins. 2009. Print.