Worldlings don't get the Buddha's notion of self

Worldlings (including secular Buddhists), i.e., prithagjanas, often mistake the Buddha’s condemnation of eternalism with a categorical denial of self or atman (P., attâ).  But eternalism is quite a different species from the Buddha’s notion of self which he tirelessly points out transcends the Five Aggregate domain of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and sensory consciousness.

When the Buddha addresses the subject of eternalism we often see the keynote phrase, “the self and the world are eternal" (sassato attâ ca loko ca).  We are to understand that the eternalist takes some particular aggregate among the Five Aggregates (skandhas, khandhas), for example, form, to be the self and the world.  This he believes to be “eternal, permanent.”  In a nutshell, the eternalist firmly believes the Five Aggregates, in some way, are eternal and permanent—the self equals the aggregates (skandhas).  (The source I am using for this is from Peter Masefield’s translation of The Udana Commentary starting on page 882.  The commentary gives a clear, exegetical picture of what eternalism is which I have been following thus far.)

A careful consideration of the Nikayas show that the Buddha never once equated his self with any aggregate.  Referring to each aggregate, the common refrain throughout the Nikayas is: this is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.  From this we must understand that the Buddha, while teaching  through the Five Aggregate apparatus, was not of them.  Said again, the Buddha’s self transcended the aggregate sphere.

Trying to convey this to his followers was not easy for even a Buddha.  Many of the Buddha’s followers adhered to some aggregate-determinton of self without being aware of it. This is what the Buddha also meant by a theory or view of self.  It is based on the belief that the self is aggregated (skandha).  Using the illustration from the Alagaddupama Sutta (M. i. 141) the problem with such a view is like someone who believes “twings, branches and foliage in this Jeta Grove” are the self so that when these twigs, branches and foliage are burned up he is no more.  This is clearly a case of misidentification; a wrong view of self insofar as the self is never aggregated or determinate.  It transcends the nets of the Five Aggregates.  Later on, in Mahayana Buddhism we come to find a broad expansion of the idea of the transcendent Self in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra.

“Kasyapa said to the Buddha: “O World-Honoured One! Is there Self in the 25 existences or not?” The Buddha said: “O good man! “Self” means “Tathagatagarbha” [Buddha-Womb, Buddha-Embryo, Buddha-Nature]. Every being has Buddha-Nature. This is the Self. Such Self has, from the very beginning, been under cover of innumerable defilements. That is why man cannot see it” (trans. Yamamoto).

 

Comments

[Olafson De Boer]

Dear Mr. Kojizen, I think you are making an affirmation of the atman by stating the obvious that Gotama rejected the skandhas as anatman. This line of reasoning is both senseless and reeks of Judeo Christian insaneness.

You make talk about rebith, but there is no person or purisha to be reborn; the suffering you refer to is extended by your soul worshiping fantasies.

[Kojizen]

Olafson De Boer, since all things are not the self (sabbe dhamma anattâ) you should take the Buddha's advice: "sabbe dhammâ nâlam abhinivesâya" (SN. IV. 50) which is translated as "all things should not be clung to."

Whoops! Maybe you should cling to all things insofar as they are not the self (anatta). This way you can be assured of rebirth and suffering since what is anattâ IS suffering (SN. III. 22). :)

[Azanshi]

Qbrick wrote; " Buddhadhamma is a wonderful Path for us secularists to go in order to level up our innate "nihilism" to "supreme nihilism".

If that is true why do you keep returning to this place? Don´t tell me. You are here to admire the neatly done gardens, the fresh colours, the impressive fauna...nah me thinks the real reason you keep coming back here, mouthing at the author, blaring out your hair brain secular theories, is that you, like any lost and confused moth, is attracted to the nearest light and away from your own dreary, material darkness. (grins).

[Olafson De Boer]

I do not appreciatie such comments; I am Finnish and Dutch, not an American. I might dirrect you that sabbe dhamma anatta , rejects the armsn in any context of Buddhist exposition; therefore to which your Hindu proclivities are exposed for what they are.

Sir Gotama rejected the atman fothwith in the Brahmajala Sutra and Samyutta Vacchagota Sutra. There ia no consensus of any pro atman slant pertaining to the Gotama

[qbrick]

Azanshi, the vast plains east of the Ural can hardly be accounted as a civilized European society. Nor the nutty pentecostal cults you seem to come down from.
Let me tell you, in Central Europe secularism is rise´ing since decades and even our eastern neighbors are discovering the joy of at least one secular characteristic of the world to be found in Buddha's teachings, that is impermance of everything. Impermance is the killer weapon to goad and soul and the secular being making use of it is the murderer of goad and soul. Fortunately we have a lot of them living here. It's healthy and fresh. Buddhadhamma is a wonderful Path for us secularists to go in order to level up our innate "nihilism" to "supreme nihilism".
Now back to your cushion, taiga dweller. Finally do what has to be done.