Vulcan, the Roman God of Volcanoes was chosen as the name of a theoretical planet that was thought to exist as the innermost planet of our solar system. It’s time as a possible planet began shortly after Newton’s theories of motion allowed astronomers to calculate the movements of all the known planets and found their calculations didn’t match their actual observations.
A French mathematician called Urbain Le Varrier had used strange anomalies in the movements of Uranus, to predict the position and existence of Neptune. In 1859 his calculations confirmed that Mercury, the planet closest to the sun, also had differences between its observed and predicted movements. When an amateur astronomer thought he observed something close to the sun later that same year, he announced this must be a previously unknown planet, which he named Vulcan.
For the next fifty-five years astronomers searched for definite confirmation of Vulcan, which given its close proximity to the sun, was generally only possible during solar eclipses. There was no doubt that something was affecting the orbit of Mercury yet nothing conclusive was even discovered. The mystery was finally solved with Einstein’s publication of his General Theory of Relativity in 1915. This proved that the anomalies in Mercury’s motion were a result of the distortion of space-time by its proximity to the sun and no other, mysterious planet was necessary.
The need for the existence of Vulcan only arose following Newton’s theories of motion. Something had to be there for these to make sense. For many astronomers, particularly Le Varrier, it had to be real to explain the anomalies in his calculations. It was only with the dawning of another realisation, Einstein’s theory of General Relativity did it become apparent that it was no longer necessary.
When I first started studying Buddhism, the concept of no-self seemed ridiculous. How could we operate, as we do, if in truth there really was no inner, stable being we call self? Like Le Varrier, I was convinced there had to be something there, being the cause and origin of our essential being. It just didn’t make sense that our ‘orchestra of being’ lacked a conductor.
Yet, as children we operate remarkably well without ever really contemplating who or what we are. In many ways, as children, we tend to operate better than adults. It is only with the advent of a certain amount of understanding do we feel the need to have this inner self. This, then becomes our focus upon which we heap doubt, dissatisfaction and all manner of neurotic worry.
It is only with a greater understanding that I realise that, like Vulcan, this inner self was never really necessary. There are thoughts, feelings and all manner of repetitive habits, but no real need for a doer of these things. It just appeared to be necessary because of the perspective of my understanding. The idea of having this inner self is necessary to explain our actions, yet often these actions arise due to habit and are ‘problems’ that this inner self has no control over.
Like Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, the doctrine of Karma does away the need for having this inner self. Thoughts, feelings and other habits arise due to conditions and causes that need no self. Karma means ‘action’ and it is our actions alone than condition future experiences. We only seem to need to have a concept of self when we are forced to examine our actions and initially, until we understand the full picture we need a ‘doer’ to explain things. Once we understand that it is the actions alone which act as the causes and conditions for future experience can we dismiss the idea of some poor, helpless inner being.
Those that struggle with mental illness and addiction can spend many years searching for this problematic self. It causes great distress to themselves and their loved ones. I can only suggest they take a fraction of this effort and study the doctrine of karma which brings focus to exactly where it is needed.
