A vacant body without a self

There is a much different spiritual flavor in the Upanishads as compared with the Pali Nikayas, especially in the older portions of the Pali Nikayas.  Even the notion of atman is used differently by the Buddha which follows, it seems, the old Prakrit, appâ, generally referring to the realized or the obtained.  

If somebody were to ask me to characterize the uniqueness of the Buddha’s teaching I would have to say that it is taught from the perspective of a teacher who has realized disembodiement—who is trying to make this fact very clear for those who are clueless about this state of being.  

One gets the sense, consistently, that the Buddha is speaking, not from the point of view of his body, but always from the point of view of being spiritually distinct from it.  He sees, in a word, a vacant body whereas before he thought, “This is mine, I am this, this is my self.”  Steven Collins tried to address this in his revised thesis, Selfless Persons, but missed the boat.  

The matter is not about selfless persons.  Far from it.  It is about being transfixed and internally coordinate with what can only be described as a vacant three dimensional image which I call my body.  The important issue for the Buddha is where we are in relationship with the three dimensional image.  Maybe the self is, in fact, independent of this enclosing shell-like image in which case it only seems like we are this body.

We need to bear in mind that the Buddha never once taught that there is no self (nattha atta).  What he taught, instead, is that phenomena are not the self (anatma) in which case the absence of self (anatma) works adjectively, meaning it is qualifying “phenomena”.  If I say “John is big”, “big” modifies John pointing out a unique feature of John.  This is why “no self” in Buddhism is always used as an adjective—not an abstract noun.  Its task is to specify or designate that transitory phenomena are insubstantial.  In plain language, any phenomenon is without a self—a mere vacant image.  In this regard, the Buddha’s teaching is an attempt to teach me that my coveted temporal body is not myself!

The Buddha is also teaching, however, a new position relative to the body without a self.  It is a new and unique position (ayatana) I can achieve by meditation (dhyana, etc.).  But first I have to disown my temporal body by retracting mind’s deep connection with it.  I have to rescue my life (sattva) that is deeply involved and interwoven in the physical body without a self (anatma).  Only then, from that vantage point of mind’s ultimate freedom, can I look upon the physical body as an ownerless, vacant body and say, “This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.”  In addition, from this vantage point is the greater self (mahatman) recognized who needs no property or home, so to speak; who is disembodied (nirvana). 

Comments

[suvimutta]

Even the demon bastard makes the half-intelligent comment- "the self is not so much denied as declared inconceivable. Anatta then simply advises against uselessly trying to conceive it (the Self)." [Page 10, Selfless Persons, Steven Collins].
However this presumptive error to wit therefore conclude as done by most: "non-conception of the Atman is the equivalent denial thereof" is the grande err so often espoused by idiots. All phenomena which are anatta (= objective totality) is the empirical and mental trifecta of avijja (greek 'TOLMA') itself, which is meant not ignorance (though empirically so as meant when referencing ignorant beings), but rather objectification, for avijja, the primordial attribute of the Absolute (vijja/atman/Brahman) is that it is inherrently objective dirrected (a); ergo a + vijja. Few know the fact that there are 2 modalities of avijja as implied in vedanta and buddhism, one as sympathetic to and of the Absolute, and the latter as pertains existential beigns (who are ignorant of thier own Self-nature, i.e. divinity, Subjective and uncompounded Svabhava).