The most well-known Western formulation of the “Bundle of perception” theory, is David Hume’s one:
we are never intimately conscious of anything but a particular perception; man is a bundle or collection of diﬀerent perceptions which succeed one another with an inconceivable rapidity and are in perpetual ﬂux and movement (Hume, Treatise on the Human Nature, I.I.VI)
Which is, allegedly, proven through a sort of abhāvapramāṇa (argument for the fact of X through the absence of its counterpart):
For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perceptionm and never can observe anything but the perception.” (A Treatise of Human Nature.
Book I, Part IV, section VI (”Of Personal Identity”).
Already at ﬁrst sight, Hume’s statement closely resembles many Buddhist statements to the same.
Do readers more familiar with Buddhism detect any important difference?