No self is, in Pali, natthatta—never anattâ. It is the philosophical position of materialists, the all too familiar belief that there is no self or soul. Anattâ has to be handled much differently than natthatta. The Buddha was not a self-denier. When, for example, we read that material shape, the first khandha/aggregate, is anattâ we have to read it thusly: "Material shape is not the self." This is the only way it can be read, in fact. In this regard, anattâ is an adjective which modifies the noun "form" to denote its quality, that it is without attâ or self (all five khandhas are without self which is not the same as assuming there is no self). The assumption that the Buddha denied the self is certainly not evident in passages like this which express, very clearly, the via negativa:
"But monks, an instructed disciple [ariya-savako] of the pure ones...taking count of the true men...well trained in the dhamma of the true men, regards material shape as: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self;’ he regards feeling as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards perception as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards the habitual tendencies as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards consciousness as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ And also he regards whatever is see, heard, sensed, cognised, reached, looked for, pondered by the mind as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’" (M. i. 136).
Turning to a passage translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi we see anattâ at work here which he translates with “nonself.”
"Bhikkhus, form is nonself. What is nonself should be see as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
Feeling is nonself... Perception is nonself...Volitional formations are nonself... Consciousness is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self'" ( S. iii. 22-23).
Looking and Bodhi's particular use of nonself, keep in mind that the prefix "non" means absent. Thus, form is absent of self, feeling is absent of self, perception is absent of self, volitional formations are absent of self and consciousness is absent of self. All this is meant to tell us that we should not regard the Five Aggregates as our self. In other discourses, the Buddha points out the the Five Aggregates are suffering; and what is suffering is anattâ (lit., not the self) which, by implication, means the self is not suffering—only the aggregates suffer. When the Buddha says: “He beholds the self purified of all these evil unskilled states, he beholds the self freed” (M. i. 283) it could also be said, as well, that the self is freed of the Five Aggregates.
Zennist: Here is a key passage overlooked by the self-deniers which is from the Lankavatara Sutra.
nairaatmyavaadino 'bhaa.syaa bhik.sukarmaa.ni varjaya/
baadhakaa buddhadharmaa.naa.m sadasatpak.sad.r.s.taya.h// [Lanka X: 359-60 (vv. 762-71)] quote
"Those who propound the doctrine of No Self are to be shunned in the religous rites of the monks, and not to be spoken to, for they are offenders of the Buddhist doctrines, having embraced the dual views of being and non-Being." ~ Lankavatara Sutra
The are more passages in the Lankavatara Sutra which are unambiguously pro-self.
Posted by: The Zennist | July 28, 2012 at 09:33 AM
Yet the Lankavatara says the Buddha DOES NOT teach the Atman! What gives?
"No, Mahamati, my Womb of Tathagatahood is not the same as the Divine Atman
p. 106
as taught by the philosophers. What I teach is Tathagatahood in the sense of Dharmakaya, Ultimate Oneness, Nirvana, emptiness, unbornness, unqualifiedness, devoid of will-effort. The reason why I teach the doctrine of Tathagatahood is to cause the ignorant and simple-minded to lay aside their fears as they listen to the teaching of egolessness and come to understand the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness. The religious teachings of the Tathagatas are just like a potter making various vessels by his own skill of hand with the aid of rod, water and thread, out of the one mass of clay, so the Tathagatas by their command of skillful means issuing from Noble Wisdom, by various terms, expressions, and symbols, preach the twofold egolessness in order to remove the last trace of discrimination that is preventing disciples from attaining a self-realisation of Noble Wisdom. The doctrine of the Tathagata-womb is disclosed in order to awaken philosophers from their clinging to the notion of a Divine Atman as transcendental personality, so that their minds that have become attached to the imaginary notion of "soul" as being something self-existent, may be quickly awakened to a state of perfect enlightenment. All such notions as causation, succession, atoms, primary elements, that make up personality, personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind. No, Mahamati, the Tathagata*s doctrine of the Womb of Tathagatahood is not the same as the philosopher's Atman."
Posted by: Jure | July 27, 2012 at 11:36 PM
shazaam...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51291460/Beyond-Language-and-Reason-Mysticism-in-Indian-Buddhism
word up homecracker
Posted by: Java Junkie Junebug Julius | July 25, 2012 at 03:13 AM