For those new to Buddhism how "self" and "no-self" are used can be quite confusing and frustrating. In general, self has two distinct uses in Buddhism. Self can refer to the existential self or it can refer to the transcendent self, that is, Buddha-nature (this is apparent in Mahayana Buddhism). Briefly looking at the existential self we can think of it as the moral agent behind our temporal actions. Here we see it in this example: "Purity and impurity depend on the very self (paccattam), no one could purify another" (Dhammapada 165).
When we look at the notion of no-self (P., anattâ; S., anâtman) we must not straightaway assume that the Buddha is denying a self or âtman. To do so would be a fatal error—a grave misunderstanding. It would smack of the heresy of annihilationism, a philosophical theory that the Buddha condemned. This brings us to ask a very crucial question: "What did the Buddha really mean by no-self?"
The Pali word an-attâ is a compound. An is a negative prefix. Attâ is a noun. When the Buddha uses the term "no-self" (anattâ) to teach us about the Five Aggregates (P. khandhas; S., skandhas), namely, form, feeling, perception, constructing activities (samskâras), and consciousness, he never fails to teach us that each aggregate, for example, the aggregate of form, is not the self. Put more simply, anattâ means that the aggregates lack self or âtman. If we are expecting to realize our true self or Buddha-nature, the last place we should look is in the aggregates which constitute our psychophysical complex or temporal body. Our human body is not-the-self or anattâ. In fact, according to the Buddha, our aggregate body belongs to Mara, the Buddhist devil!
If, over time, we persist in trying to identify our self with the form-aggregate or the consciousness-aggregate, we will continue to be reborn and suffer because according to the Buddha, each aggregate is suffering. It is only by transcending the Five Aggregates that authentic liberation is achieved.
Now imagine somebody asking the Buddha if form is the self. What is the Buddha going to say? Well, according to the canon he would tell the questioner that form is not the self or anattâ. Next, imagine this same person asking the Buddha if there is no self or in Pali, nattha attâ. What is the Buddha going to say to the questioner? Most likely, the Buddha will tell this person that he does not teach annihilationism.
When the Buddha observes a person who is confused as to what the true self is, anything he says about self is taken to be an aggregate. So strong among ordinary people (puthujjana) is the tendency to identify the self with an aggregate, say consciousness, that the Buddha has to be extremely cautious, lest he lead this person astray. For those who believe that the Buddha denied the self in so many words, if the Buddha were present today, he would call these people annihilationists since they teach no self (nattha attâ).
Comments