The Zennist: Nope, the Buddha is not denying the self

I have found it interesting over the years to see to what lengths some Buddhist scholars will go to in order to prove that Gautama the Buddha did in fact deny the self using the Pali term, anattâ.

Take the example of Steven Collins, a strong advocate of the Theravada doctrine that the Buddha denied the self. He wants us to understand that attâ (lit., the self) is really a “regular reflexive pronoun in Pali” (Selfless Persons, p. 71). Okay, I’ll bite for the sake of argument (Pali scholar and translator Mrs. Rhys Davids doesn’t buy the reflexive pronoun theory). Here, by the way, are some examples of the English reflexive pronoun: “oneself,” “myself,” “yourself,” “himself.” Now let’s plug a reflexive pronoun into verse 279 from the Dhammapada (bold is mine).

“When by wisdom one perceives that all things are not oneself (an-attâ), then one turns away from suffering. This is the path of purification.”

Rather odd, but this verse doesn’t at all drive home the point that Gautama denied the self or âtman. Okay, lets plug a reflexive pronoun into a larger passage. Again, bold is mine.

"Bhikkhus, form is not oneself [an-attâ]. What is not oneself should be see as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not myself.’Feeling is not oneself ... Perception is not oneself ... Volitional formations are not oneself ... Consciousness is not oneself. What is not oneself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not myself’" (S. iii. 22–23).

Once more, I don’t get the impression that this passage expresses the doctrine of no self or anattâvada.

Here is another passage from the old Sutta-Nipatta (756) :

"The world, inclusive of its gods, conceiving himself in what is not himself, convinced by name and form, he conceives it to be true." (Bold is mine.)

This verse basically says that we are looking for ourself in what is not ourself because we are fixated (nivittha) on name and form. Once again, the above verse does not lead one to believe that Gautama the Buddha denied the self or âtman. What one does sense is that Gautama is telling us that this world, including our temporal body, is not our true self. In this way, you could say, the Buddha is a like a physician warning us not to indulge in name and form. It is harmful.

In truth, all things (sabbe dhammâ) are not ourself. In order to see ourself we must completely lay aside what is not ourself. This, by the way, is the via negativa. But the via negativa is not what Buddhist scholars like Collins want to accept as the real meaning conveyed by the Buddha with such expressions as “Bhikkhus, form is not oneself.”