Conventional self is a killer

Recently, some Buddhist scholars, based on textual evidence, have had to acknowledge at least a few positive uses of self by the Buddha.  This concession on their part takes the form of an empirical, conventional self or to be more precise, the person of physical appearance, feelings, thoughts, inclinations and awareness more technically, the Five Aggregates.

On the surface this looks hunky-dory.  The conventionalists allow self to be used in a very limited way no doubt thinking to themselves, “Yep, Buddhism has a self, but it is a conventional, nominal self.  It just stands for the Five Aggregates.”  However, below the surface, when you search through the Buddhist canon, there is something wrong with the theory of the conventional self especially when it is made to signify the Five Aggregates.  Let's use for our example the following passage which is taken from the Digha-Nikaya, ii. 100:

"Wherefore, Ananda, go along having Self as lamp [dipa], Self as refuge and none other refuge; having dhamma as lamp, dhamma as refuge, and none other refuge" (trans. Coomaraswamy & Horner). 

Now envision this.  The Buddha is dying from food poisoning or some other ailment.  We are supposed to believe, according to some Buddhist scholars and clergy, that he is telling his followers that after he has departed to the yonder shore of complete nirvana they should make their empirical, conventional self a refuge as well as the Dharma.  In other words, the Buddha is really telling his followers to make the Five Aggregates their refuge since there is no higher Self.  Said again, there are only these temporal aggregates which are yourself; which are your refuge, etc.  But this is balderdash.  And why?  Because the Five Aggregates—the conventional person—belongs to Mara or the killer who is better known as Mara the Evil One.  Here is the evidence from a translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi. 

“When there is form, Radha, there might be Mara, or the killer, or the one who is killed.  Therefore, Radha, see form as Mara, see it as the killer, see it as the one who is killed.  See it as a disease, as a tumor, as a dart, as misery, as really misery.  Those who see it thus see rightly.  
When there is feeling ... When there is perception ... When there are volitional formations ... When there is consciousness, Radha, there might be Mara, or the killer, or the one who is killed” (S. iii. 189).

In effect, the accepted view of Buddhism has the Buddha telling his followers, before he crosses over, to make Mara the Evil One a refuge as well has his teaching or Dharma!  Frankly, this makes the Buddha sound like someone who has a couple of screws missing.  By comparison, this would be like Jesus telling his disciples that after he has departed from them, to make Satan their comforter!

I know some will argue with my position.  And well they should, after all they’ve invested a major part of their life in nonsense and would be, I suspect, unfain to admit their blunder.  Nevertheless, my logic is not easily overturned.  A conventional self or personality cannot but otherwise stand for the Five Aggregates—and the Five Aggregates are synonymous with Mara, the killer; the Buddha’s adversary.

For those of us who have not bought into the sectarian no-self doctrine, we understand the Buddha told his followers to make the higher Self their refuge along with the Dharma and all that Dharma implies as ultimate reality and the teaching.  And shouldn’t a refuge be one which is perdurable instead of temporary?

Comments

[Artie]

While I do not disagree with the general thrust of your arguments, you are dodging a fundamental issue. Fine, the 5-aggregate based "self" is an illusion, yet there is a higher Self embraced by the Buddha. BUT, is there any individuality to this Self? If not, no problem, but if that is the case, the term Self is misleading. In the dictionary, "self" means "a person's essential being that differentiates him from others." One can have "essential being" without individual identity, but then why not say Buddha Essence rather than Self.

While the constant attacks on contemporary Zen have some merit, I would appreciate more constructive discussion.

[Frank]

This is very interesting and heartening. You are one of if not the most interesting buddhist scholar writing today.