Negation, the self and dharma

I have been looking at a very expensive book I just got in the mail yesterday (I was lucky, I got it cheap).  In subsequent blogs I will use it.  Oh, by the way, its title is Linguistic Approach to Buddhist Thought.  The author is Genjun H. Sasaki.  Yeah, it’s pretty heady stuff but interesting even for a beginner.

As we all know just before the Buddha died he said the following to Ananda:

“Therefore, Ananda, stay as those who have the self as an island (attadîpâ), as those who have the self as refuge (attasaranâ), as those who have no other refuge; as those who have the dharma as an island, as those who have dhamma as refuge, as those who have no other refuge” (Mahaparinibbana Sutta, D.  ii.  100)

In Sasaki’s book we learn the following about self from a linguistic point of view.

“The Pali term atta (self) in this passage [this is the above on taken from the Mahaparinibbana Sutta] implies dhamma.  Geiger also equalizes atta and dhamma in his book, Pâli Dhamma (p. 79).  K. Bhattacharya is incline to recognize Geiger’s view (CF. L’Âtman-Brahman dans le bouddhisme ancient. p. 62)” (p. 59). (Brackets are mine.)

From this same book we also learn that “Buoddhaghosa also recognizes the equivalence atta = dhamma” (p. 59) although from an Abhidhamma perspective.

When we come across such phrases as “form is not-self (anatta)” or “feeling is not-self” this is no more a denial of self than saying the engine of the automobile is not a driver.  We understand the driver to be totally different than the automobile and its various parts.  By saying form is not-self, the Buddha is simply saying the true dharma or dhamma, i.e., the self, is not one of the Five Aggregates which, incidentally, belong to Mara the Evil One.

I know I keep on harping on this but a lot of Buddhists have been fed inaccurate information about the role of self in Buddhism, including negation (the via negativa).  Given that Buddhism uses negation a great deal, such as the negation of the Five Aggregates which are not my self—and can never be my self, Buddhism also has a positive side which points to the absolute.  Negation works, in fact, as a surefire method by which to approach the supreme positive, namely, the absolute.

 

Comments

[Kevin]

Just curious,

where did you find that book? I have been looking for it for a long time. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

-Kevin

[Vaccha]

The statement of the passage is clear, there is only one ultimate refuge. The sense in which atta and dhamma are equivocally that refuge is most certainly the same sense in which the tathagata is equivocally "brahmakaya" and "dhammakaya" or "brahmabhuto" and "dhammabhuto" and furthermore equivalent to the liberated or self-adequate atta in terms of doctrine in such as the Yamaka sutta of the Khandha Saymutta. Also at AN II.34 in the "four best faiths" (The Buddha, 8fp & Nibbana as Dhamma, and Sangha), Nibbana is equated to Dhamma.
So to me here Dhamma is equivalent to Nibbana ie the self-as-only-refuge (where Parinibbana is such "in the very self"; paccattanyeva) which thus means that to have atta as only refuge (as against the impermanent world) is that Nibbana is sole refuge.
Thus dhamma/brahma/tatha/atta/nibbana.

Not dhamma in the sense of environment or phenomena. Rather an ideal or ought-to-be; self-adequacy or the ultimate religious norm; perfection.

[Java Junkie]

dhamma is prakriti not atman

there is no doctrinal substantiation for that Japanese commentators conjectures

dhamma in most instances is = pan or composite totality or the grasp thereof

trash the Japanese linear mental farts

[Imperishable Night]

Thank you. Whenever you look online on Buddhist forums and such, you always find what I call "hippie circlejerk", people patting each other's backs and discussing personal issues. More and more I find how all this is highly irrelevant and we should instead shut up and sit down and study Buddhism diligently. I think it's also the fault of some Zen teachers who gave the wrong impression to Westerners ... somehow we've been led to believe we don't have to study the sutras, the studies, but only be "mindful" of everything. It's all brainwashing including this mantra about "mindfulness".

This Blog of yours is a Dharma island on the sea of the Internet. Instead of blathering about your emotions you go into study and analysis, clarifying the foundations and elementary words. It's rare, really. It's what Western Buddhism chronically lacks.

Anyway, you should one day systematize this into a single body of text, list all the most common misconceptions of Western Buddhism and publish it somehow. It would be of great benefit to many.