How to practice Dharma

Some modern Buddhists might not think it strange if the Buddha said that the practice of Dharma (P., dhamma) consists in revulsion towards the self (atma) or any idea of self.  Their standpoint, of course, is the Buddha denied the self but not completely the Five Aggregates; and while it is okay to cozy up with the aggregates, one should vehemently deny the self.  This, they believe, is right practice.

But what if, in fact, the Buddha said the practice of Dharma consists in revulsion towards the Five Aggregates (S. iii. 40)?  Which, by the way, is true.  This would certainly imply that the Dharma is like the self which we are never, according to the Buddha, to identify with the Five Aggregates.

If I have not made this clear enough lets start by looking at the pericope (S. iii. 40) which is about the practice of Dharma.

“Bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu [monk] is practising in accordance with the Dhamma [Dharma], this is what accords with the Dhamma; he should dwell engrossed in revulsion towards form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness [i.e., the Five Aggregates]” (trans. Bhikkhu Bodhi).

We can see that practicing in accord with Dharma entails non-identification with any or all aggregates.  For example, I must have a revulsion towards form, or feeling, or the rest of the aggregates.  

All in all, this practice of Dharma accords with the following discourse of the Buddha where I am supposed to realize that the Five Aggregates are not my self.  Thus, I should turn away from them.

“Wherefore, monks, whatever is material shape, past, future or present, internal ... thinking of all this material shape as ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self,’ he should see it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. Whatever is feeling ... whatever is perception ... whatever are the habitual tendencies ... whatever is consciousness, past, future or present, internal ... thinking of all this consciousness as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self,’ he should see it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. Seeing it thus, monks, the instructed disciple of the pure one turns away from material shape, he turns away from feeling, turns away from perception, turns away from the habitual tendencies, turns away from consciousness; turning away he is detached; by his detachment he is freed; in freedom there is the knowledge that he is freed and he comprehends: Destroyed is birth, brought to a close the Brahma-faring, done is what was to be done, there is no more being such or so” (trans. I.B. Horner M. iii. 20).

It is beyond dispute that the adept must not identify with the Five Aggregates.  And one would be practicing the Dharma to do so.  On the other hand, would the adept be practicing the Dharma to say that it consists in turning away or a revulsion towards the self?  He would not.

For those new to Buddhism, this is where Buddhism gets confusing.  There are Buddhists, on the one hand, who are vehement that the Buddha denied the self or atman.  And there are Buddhists on the other side who say, wait a minute, the Buddha is  only telling us that our self is not the Five Aggregates.  That isn’t by any measure a denial of self.  

So who is right?  It should be obvious.  We are not the Five Aggregates.  And to practice Dharma means to disengage from them. 

Comments

[Ted Bagley]

Seems to me that Buddha is recommending standing up to the idea of a self and provoking a response from it.
When in doubt, I like to check out biological synonyms. This one being a counterirritation, like histamine in the body. So the practice would be a skillful means of getting under one's own skin.