It can be reasonably argued that the Pali canon only attests to an “I am not these five psychophysical aggregates (skandhas)” realization of the self—not the self’s negation. There is little evidence in the early Pali Buddhist scriptures that the Buddha was out to destroy the Upanishadic notion of Atman. Almost the opposite seems to be the case. The Buddha’s teaching is meant to make a radical distinction between Atman and the non-atman, the latter being the five psychophysical aggregates (which I have mentioned in other blogs belongs to Mara the Buddhist devil).
Perhaps more pertinent, in the Buddhist canon, what can be said of each psychophysical aggregate such as form (rupa) or consciousness (vijñâna), for example, which is quite negative, can be said also of the nonself (anattâ, lit. not-the-self). The nonself is not only suffering, it is something unworthy that we should not cling to. If you have the understanding that the Buddha taught a doctrine of nonself, you're wrong. Nowhere in the Pali canon can be found an explicit doctrine of nonself. Concluding bluntly, the nonself is evil along with the psychophysical aggregates.
Worth adding, many times the Buddha will point out to the monks that the psychophysical aggregates which are nonself, should be correctly discerned as “This [aggregate] is not mine, this [aggregate] I am not, this [aggregate] is not my self (attâ/atmâ) (S. iii. 22). He is basically saying, also, this nonself is not mine, I am not this nonself, this nonself is not my self. This is a rejection of not only the five psychophysical aggregates but also the nonself. But the modern teaching of Buddhism would have us believe otherwise, which is frankly stupid.
It truly counts as one of the most astonishing screwups fuckups in all of religion, that the followers of the Buddha should proclaim as his authentic teaching what he was dead set against. I need to say, at this point, that the ramifications of such a screwup are far-reaching and may, in fact, limit Buddhism’s marketability in the twenty-first century or limit its appeal only to nihilists. Perhaps this screwup is what helped to bring Buddhism to an end in the land of its birth. It is remarkable that when Buddhism went to China and became popular, the No-Self doctrine didn’t make much of an impresson. In fact, a Sutra of great popularity was the Mahaparinirvana Sutra which teaches that the Tathagata is the Atman. Other Sutras, too, like the Lanakavatara Sutra taught the Atman as did still other Mahayana Sutras.
One final thought. To understand the way the Buddha saw the Atman we need to imagine that we are nothing more or less than pure water. As this pure water when we look into ourself we see no-thing—nor even ourself. Agitating ourself we finally see something determinate. But what we see is not ourself (anatman). What we see, instead, is a form. Then we feel something; then we perceive; have inclinations and become conscious (all these are the five psychophysical aggregates). But as pure water we do not apperceive ourself. We only see the pure water’s ripples or wave-forms. Holding this thought before us, if we wished, as pure water, to see ourself should we cling to our agitations? Could we say that we are specifically not these agitations? And finally, what would happen if one night we let them go just for a brief second? What would we behold?
Comments