TwoCents | Who says who we are? - by Joshua Omoijiade

The Milindapahna tells the tale of a king, Milinda and his conversation with Buddhist sage, Nagasena. The king asks the sage, following pleasantries: “How is your reverence known, and what sir is your name?”. To this, Nagasena replies I am called Nagasena but Nagasena is only a designation; here no permanent individual can be found. The king found this perplexing and asked further "If, most venerable Nagasena, that is true, who is it who gives you robes, food and shelter? Who lives the righteous life? Or again, who kills living beings, steals, commits adultery, tells lies or takes strong drink? If what you say is true then there is neither merit nor demerit, nor is there any doer of good or evil deeds and no result of kamma. If, venerable sir, a man were to kill you there would be no murder, and it follows that there are no masters or teachers in your Order. You say that you are called Nagasena; now what is that Nagasena? Is it the hair?" Nagasena replies: “I don’t say that”. The king presses on; is it then the nails, teeth, skin or other parts of the body?” and the sage says it is certainly not. According to Nagasena, he is not any of these things; neither is he his perceptions, consciousness or feelings; he denies the existence of a fixed being even in the combination of these things. The king is perplexed still and says “Ask as I may, I can discover no Nagasena. Nagasena is an empty sound. Who is it I am speaking with? You have spoken falsely your reverence.” Nagasena then asks the king about a chariot. He says to the king explain what that is. “Is it the axle? Or the wheels, or the chassis, or reins, or yoke that is the chariot? The king says it is none of the things - not even the combination of them. Then the sage flips the earlier rebuttal on its head “Then sir, this chariot is an empty sound.” he speaks to the Bactrian Greeks in attendance “This King Milinda has said that he came here by a chariot but when asked 'What is it?' he is unable to show it. Is it possible to approve of that?" The king then says it is because all these parts are present that it comes under the name chariot and so Nagasena gives him a break. He says that you’re correct and in much the same way; it is because all the physical parts that make me human and the more spiritual parts are present at once that I come into being. "Most wonderful, Nagasena, most extraordinary that you have solved this puzzle, difficult though it was. If the Buddha himself were here he would approve of your reply.” The conversation illustrates an interesting concept I have pondered for some time. Paraphrasing Carlo Rovelli in his book, The Order of Time, people are like events - like kisses, not stones. From where I stand, a person - for example, Joshua writing this - is a collection of factors unfolding as time moves along. There is never a static point where the definition of a person is fully resolved. Before I explain further, here's another story. A man is in conversation with a woman in a newly opened coffee shop on Lagos island. The woman is beautiful and he is making his best impression - all his best jokes are at the table and she's smiling through the performance. Midway through the conversation she teases as she asks “Are you promiscuous?” The man is unsteadied but shows no hesitation. He shakes his head smiling before saying: “You know it's not fashionable or common but even single I like to be a one-woman kind of man”. She seems appeased and the rest of the date passes smoothly. What she didn't see was a split mental second before he responded he wondered “Who gets to say if I am or not?” Where Nagasena outlines the internal factors that make up a being, self or person, this man is wondering who or what external factors besides himself say if he's promiscuous. By extension, one might ask what external factors say if he's anything at all. I've spent some time thinking about these very factors and the narrative of defining any person. Even the question “Who am I?” begs more scrutiny; below, I attempt to articulate my thoughts clearly on the subject as well as my problem with the question “Who am I” To begin with; it is common sense to imagine that each person you encounter is of a unique origin. No two people can have identical pasts no matter how similar. We belong to our bespoke branches of time; behind us, we have trekked across unique roads and are naturally heading toward futures unlike any other. I thought first to think about how my specific past and future would construct every single aspect of my person. Other factors such as self-definition by a God, other people, and so on, require an extra leap in my mind. Nothing is so innate in my perception as this river of time that I stand in. It was here that my first problem with the question ‘Who am I?’ arose. Once upon a time in Ephesus of ancient Greece, Heraclitus was credited with saying: “Upon those who step into the same rivers, different and ever different waters flow down” The more popular version of this is that one cannot step into the same river twice. The world exists in a constant state of change; as I march onwards in that stream of time, I lift my feet and stride but with each step, I am changed. The me who types the words is not the one who looks back on them. As I go through this passing moment, I change from the person who wishes to type to the person typing to the person who has typed. Even temporally, I am never static. The world, and by extension its people, is made up of events, not static things. The only constant thing is the constant stream of flux from which our self-definition is not exempted. Thinking about how I and you, the reader, are ever-changing even between words of this essay; I began to lose faith in the question: “Who am I?” If I am constantly changing, I am constantly becoming in time; I never really am - just always being. The man wooing the woman might more correctly have answered (and probably never seen her again): “ I am not BEING promiscuous. My god would not say I am, the people around me mostly do not, I was not in the recent past and I crucially decide today to not be”. I do not fault anyone too strongly for persisting with the default structure of the question, but it simply cannot make too much sense when given enough attention. As the ever-changing present slips through our fingers and tomorrow is always ahead, so are we always acquiring new pasts and futures. In the sense of time, I am no “thing” I am like a continuous conversation — a kiss ongoing; I am not being like a stone. I am being or always becoming. To simplify my thoughts to myself I combined the things Nagasena described as parts of himself - organic matter and the feelings, emotions etc - into the past. Once a thing is a fact about a person it becomes part of the past that follows them into the present. I am a man, 5’11 who started writing an essay on ontology. These are facts but they are now past and follow me into this present moment till they change. The sum of my facts or facticity is now just one aspect of my specific timeline. Outside of time, we are defined by other people or beings. No use saying you're a person capable of flying if the whole world decides you cannot. In terms of values you cannot say you are caring, a kind person or good if your circle or god say otherwise. Note: “God” in the context of this essay is defined as follows: It is a fact that whether intentionally or not, each person aggregates the values and ideals that matter the most to them and within themselves, these values are arranged in a hierarchy. The summation and hierarchical structure of these values that inform their actions, order their conscience and serve as their Judge is what I am referring to when I say, God. Within all of us, there is the voice of a God that describes and judges us. For example, if I wish to say I am a good man. I must refer to that very voice and judge my heart against that hierarchy of ideals. The man who serves a God of love is good in his mind if he performs actions of a loving variety and, in another example, the man who believes in a God that extols violence will turn his face to that God and quietly wonder if he has been violent enough to warrant his judge’s approval. The final factor is ourselves. We have the biggest say in defining who or what we are. In every facet of life, we do not have the complete say, but we can simply decide to change the direction of our stories. One could be a villain in jail and of course, some things are no longer possible at that point but, this person could decide to become a villain in jail who reads and teaches the other inmates. As we decide and drive our narratives; the others around us define us similarly (or don't) the God internalized judges us and in the narrative of time that flows, the facts remain and pass. Within this united effort is the space where a being comes into existence in time. We are stories being told by many bards. I think it's crucial to be aware of two things. Firstly we are not fixed. Each moment we choose how we are being. Secondly, we do not choose alone. I have mentioned examples where the protagonist has much power in choosing but sometimes the world conspires with more power to say who we are. I think it is crucial to remember the power we have and do not have in at given points so we can quickly or slowly alter or maintain the story.

Other insights from Joshua Omoijiade