Sometimes when I read the principle Upanishads of the early period such as the Brihadaranyaka, which supposedly predates Buddhism, I can’t help being struck by similarities between certain passages found in the Upanishads and in the Buddhist canon. Take for example the following from the Brihandaranyaka.
“This [Self] is dearer than a son, dearer than wealth, dearer than everything else, [because] It is innermost. If one [holding the Self dear] were to say to a person who speaks of anything other than the Self as dear, that he, the latter, will lose what he holds dear—and the former is certainly competent to do so—it will indeed come true.
One should meditate upon the Self alone as dear. He who meditates upon the Self alone as dear—what he holds dear will not perish." (I. iv. 8)
This is all pretty simple. The Self is the hypostasis or substance, everything else isn't. In this respect, the Self should be regarded as most dear. So what does the Pali Buddhist canon have which is similar to the Brihandaranyaka? This is what I found.
“At this time King Pasenadi of Kosala was on the upper terrace of the palace with Queen Mallikâ. And the king asked her: "Mallikâ, is there anyone dearer to you than the self?
"Your Majesty, there is no one dearer to me than the self. (Natthi kho me, maharaja, kocañño attanâ piyataro).
And you, sire, is anyone dearer to you than the self?"
"Nor is there anyone dearer to me, Mallikâ, than the self."
Then the king went down from the palace and visited the Blessed One [and told him the whole story.] And the Blessed One, understanding, thereupon uttered this verse:
Going around all quarters with the mind,
Not a thing was found dearer than the self (nevajjhaga piyataramattanâ kvaci).
In this way the self of everyone is dear to others,
There one who loves the self (attakâmo) should never hurt another” (S. i. 75).
Let it be granted for now that both passages are quite similar and the Brihandaranyaka passage is older so what do our modern Buddhist self deniers have to say about this? I am guessing, not much except to bring up one of their pet arguments that self should be translated with ‘yourself’. In other words, we are to think this way: There is not a transitory finite thing to be found dearer than yourself which is also transitory and finite. But this is not what we are to gather from both passages.
Comments