Characteristics of what is not my self

The second discourse given by the Buddha, which might have been around the time of the rainy season retreat, was given in the DeerPark at Isipatana.  In Pali, the discourse is named Anattâ-lakkhana Sutta (SN 22.59) which translated means the discourse on the characteristics of the not self.  

This discourse is important for the reason that the Buddha teaches his five monks the difference between what is not the self, namely, the Five Aggregates, and their self.  It is a mistake to assume that this Sutta is a direct attack against the notion of the self or the âtman.   In fact, what the five monks learn from this discourse is that they are to regard each aggregate beginning with material shape, feeling, perception, habitual tendencies, to consciousness, thusly: This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self. By this they experience a revulsion towards the Five Aggregates, and on account of this revulsion attain liberation.

A very simple discourse, by the same token, this discourse is easily misconstrued by Buddhists who are under the spell of the sectarian teaching that the Buddha denied the self, which he did not.  For those who are earnestly seeking liberation, like the five monks in the Anattâ-lakkhana Sutta, they are intent upon discerning what is absolute from what is not, namely, the aggregates which are impermanent and suffering.  

For a certain period of time before this sermon, it was probably easy for the five monks to believe that a subtle aggregate like the fifth aggregate, consciousness, was their self (the idea that vijñâna or consciousness is the absolute principle appears in the ancient Upanisads).  They were no doubt unaware of the sharp spiritual distinction between the aggregates, which are not the self, i.e., anattâ, and the self or attâ.  

After the minds of the five monks attained perfect spiritual liberation, it is difficult to see why they would, afterwards, help propagate a doctrine which attacked the notion of a self which transcended the aggregates.  The more effective doctrine would be to teach the rejection of the aggregated psychophysical body as being the self since it is always impermanent and suffering according to the Anattâ-lakkhana Sutta.

Comments

[Owen]

I am trying very hard to understand the conceptualizations of your teachings, but I am struggling. No doubt, that is partly because I lack sufficient experiential background to provide a context for the conceptual model, but I am trying nonetheless. My current confusion is as follows - As I understand your blogpost above, Atman (the Self) is not vijñâna (consciousness). In the subsequent blogpost, you contend that Vedanta (presumably Advaita Vedanta?) is only insignificantly different from "Buddhism". My understanding, though, is that the Upanishads and Vedanta claim that the Self IS consciousness/awareness, so I am confused.

Can you clarify?

I am sincerely interested in understanding your model, and look forward to hearing back from you.