The Zennist blog from what I have seen on the Internet has the distinction of being one of the few Buddhist blogs that has not followed the herd-belief that the Buddha categorically denied the self. The implication of this is that The Zennist blog is right and the Buddhist herd is wrong, wrong in the sense of maintaining that the Buddha categorically denied the self or in Pali, attâ.
But how can a few people be right and the huge majority wrong? (Believe me, I am not the only one who has concluded that the Buddha did not categorically deny the self of attâ.) The obvious answer to this question is that the majority have not thoroughly and intelligently read the discourses of the Buddha; especially the discourses which directly bear on what is termed ‘non-self’ or in Pali, anattâ including the Five Aggregates from which, incidentally, the non-self doctrine is formed. Many important discourses which bear on this are to be found in the Khandhasamyutta section of the larger, Samyutta Nikaya or The Connected Discourses of the Buddha published by Wisdom Publications. This section consists of 159 discourses, one of which is the important second discourse the Buddha gave which is named Anattâ-lakkhana Sutta (SN 22.59) which translated is Non-self Characteristics Discourse.
Key to understanding why the Buddha did not categorically deny the self lies in knowing what, exactly, the Five Aggregates are; foremost understanding that they belong to Mara the Evil One, they are impermanent and suffering, and they are not our self. In other words, according to the many discourses, the Buddha does not want us to identify our self with these corrupt aggregates. This understanding goes to make up the non-self doctrine.
Up to this point no scholar can dispute my assertion that the aggregates belong to Mara the Evil One, nor can they dispute my assertion that the aggregates are impermanent and suffering. Nor can they dispute my assertion that these aggregates are “non-self” or in Pali, anattâ. Now comes the part where we learn that the Buddha did not categorically deny the self.
In the first discourse of the Khandhasamyutta a householder is taught not to regard the Five Aggregates as the self. In the second discourse we learn the Buddha teaches the removal of desire and lust for the Five Aggregates. In the seventh discourse a worldling regards the aggregates as the self—a noble disciple does not regard the aggregates as the self. In the ninth discourse, the aggregates are regarded as impermanent, both of the past and the future, including the present. In the tenth discourse the aggregates are said to be suffering. In the sixteenth discourse, the aggregates are suffering and what is suffering is non-self (anattâ). Each aggregate is to be regarded: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self (attâ)’. In the twentieth discourse, the cause and condition of the arising of the aggregates is non-self or anattâ. In the twenty-second discourse the Five Aggregates are called a burden. Laying down the burden is blissful. In the twenty-fifth discourse we are to abandon desire and lust for the aggregates. In the thirty-first discourse the root of misery are the aggregates. In the thirty-third discourse we learn that the aggregates are not our self just like watching someone burn grass, sticks, branches and foliage we would not think they are burning us. The aggregates are not ours. In the thirty-ninth discourse, one practicing in accordance with the Dhamma dwells engrossed in revulsion towards the aggregates. In the forty-third discourse we are to regard the self as an island with the self as refuge with no other refuge. In the fifty-third discourse one who is engaged with the aggregates is unliberated; one disengaged is liberated. In the fifty-ninth discourse, we learn that the aggregates are non-self that if they were the self or attâ, there would be no affliction. In the sixty-first discourse the aggregates are burning, thus we must have a revulsion towards them. In the sixty-third discourse we learn that clinging to the aggregates one is bound to Mara; by not clinging to them one is freed from the Evil One. In the sixty-eighth discourse we should abandon desire for whatever is non-self or anattâ. In the sixty-ninth discourse we should abandon desire for whatever does not belong to the self. In the eighty-fifth discourse the noble disciple does not regard the aggregates as the self. He does not become engaged with the aggregates. He regards the aggregates as murderous. In the ninety-fourth discourse the aggregates are never permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change. In the ninety-fifth discourse we learn that the aggregates are foam, a water bubble, a mirage, a plantain trunk, and an illusion. In the one hundredth discourse we learn that worldlings only produce the aggregates which are impermanent. In the one hundred and seventeenth discourse we learn that regarding the aggregates as self is bondage. In the one hundred and nineteenth discourse we learn that it is good to regard the aggregates thus: this I am not, this is not mine, this is not my self. In the one hundred and twenty-second discourse we are to regard the aggregates as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumor, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as empty, as non-self (anattâ). In the one hundred and fifty-sixth discourse we learn that a view of self arises by clinging to the aggregates.
In other Nikayas like the Majjhima Nikaya also, The Middle Length Sayings, in reference to a theory of self or attavada we find the following:
“Those various views, Cunda, that arise in the world and are connected with theories of the self [attavada] or with theories of the world [lokavada]—wherever these views arise and wherever they obsess (the mind) and wherever they are current, it is by seeing them with perfect wisdom as they really are, thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’, that there is ejection of these views, that there is renunciation of these views” (M. i. 40).
Clearly this passage instructs us not even to regard theories of the self to be our self. Sound odd? It’s not if we understand that theories or views of self stem from the aggregates, regarding them as the self.
In other discourses (e.g., D. i. 195–197) we learn the Buddha rejected three kinds of self. They are: the gross acquired self, the mind-made acquired self, the formless/arûpa acquired self. This is a qualified, limited denial—not a categorical denial of the self. The self of the Buddha and his disciples is always regarded as separate from the Five Aggregates; moreover, it is our refuge; which is also the noble witness among other things.
Buddhists who maintain the Buddha categorically denied the self offer no credible grounds or basis for their belief. In addition, recognizing and marketing Buddhism as a materialistic soul denying religion seems to have a greater appeal to the general public than marketing it as Asian gnosticism, which it is.
Comments