The necessity of self

The Buddhist self or âtman is most generally used in contrast with the Five Aggregates (pañca-skandha) which are considered to be non-self.  The self is to be thought of as spiritually separate and independent from the corruptness and influence of the Five Aggregates.  The Buddha, in fact, teaches his monks to shed their identification with the aggregates thus affirming who they really are.  The common refrain throughout the early discourses of the Buddha is always: This [aggregate] is not mine, I am not this [aggregate], this [aggregate] is not my self.

So why the necessity of a Buddhist âtman rather than no âtman?  With these words, D.T. Suzuki masterfully sums up the case for the âtman and why, by implication, no âtman or non-self is almost evil.

“Mahayana Buddhists generally understand the essential characteristic of âtman to consist in freedom, and by freedom they mean eternality, absolute unity, and supreme authority.  A being that is transitory is not free, as it is conditioned by other beings, and therefore it has no âtman.  A being that is an aggregate of elemental matter or forms of energy is not absolute, for it is a state of mutual relationship, and therefore it has no âtman.  Again, a being that has no authoritative command over itself and other beings, is not free, for it will be subjected to a power other than itself, and therefore it has no âtman.  Now, take anything that we come across in this world of particulars; and does it not possess one or all of these three qualities: transitoriness, compositeness, and helplessness or dependence?  Therefore, all concrete individual existences not excepting human beings have no âtman, have no ego, that is eternal, absolute, and supreme” (Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism, p. 144).

Compare this with the standard pop Buddhist belief that all is empty and insubstantial. Existence is impermanent and suffering and there is absolutely no self.  Accepting this wholeheartedly is what the Buddha supposedly teaches!  If this were true (and it is not) the Buddha would be teaching a religion, exclusively, of bondage with no liberation!  Buddhism would then be fundamentally evil which it is not since what it actually teaches is liberation from dependence, impermanence, suffering, and liberation from the absence of authentic selfhood. 

Comments

[solon]

Dharmawho? jeff Stefani:

As long as you refuse to unlearn what you have learned, you remain but a fool, enamoured with the misty aberrations of confused thought-imagery and the drug-poisoned will (defiled spirit) you have presented in the comment section on this blog, not the mention the quasi buddhist crappola you offer on your own blog..

The very ground of ignorance is the Mind that stays deaf and blind to the ground shaking reality of its own true self, proved as such through its own radiant and deathless body of Mind Only.

If you have ever disembodied from the five skandhas, this is something you should know instantaneously. It is this body that freely identifies itself with the pure dharma realm of countless Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and enters it accordingly, without a notion of stillness or motion.

To speak of existence or non-existence here (as you do on your ridiculous blog and in your text walls here) while offering long incoherent rants, about your latest drug induced "enlightenment" , is a sure sign of what Buddha deemed as one or several of the fifty false enlightenments at play and at service of Mara.

The drug abuse you brag about on your blog attracts demons, and the mentally toxic states induced by the same, as dung attracts flies.

Your fresh pile of quasi-narco-Buddhism stinks to high heavens and the odour is unmistakable to anyone with good knowledge into the real thing.

The proper Zen Buddhist seeking perfect enlightenment, possesses a highly inquisitive yet relaxed mind, knowing that properly applied, the purifying effect of abiding in the Unborn Buddha Mind opens up the increased probability of a propitious moment. A moment where right knowledge and right release is instantly at hand, to use and choose in accordance with ones enlightened will (spirit).

I speak of a moment where the hidden principle and life force discoursed by all Buddhas and mahabodhisattvas to those able to see beyond a body and mind of flesh and thought imagery or even their antithesis, sunyata.

[Dharmamitra Jeff Stefani]

Greetings, again :) I want to Post Script, because I realize in review that I misunderstood some of what your were saying, and that much of what I (was trying to) convey, is, in fact, Not contradictory to what you have written. I wrote this reply after a night of little sleep, and although the substance of my my point is the same, I want to clarify three things, which after re-reading your posting, I understand clearly, and when I first read it, I misunderstood one of your central points , which is actually totally consistent with my experience, and what I was trying to convey.
First off; one of your fundamental criticisms is very accurate , and I misread this, the first time. Your summary of what you call pop Buddhist belief, I would simply call a False View, namely: "Existence is impermanent and suffering and there is absolutely no self."
That is a very relevant point, i missed the essential adverb of "absolutely." There is No Fixed, static, permanent, substantial, or ultimately satisfactory Self, which NOT the same thing, at all, as "absolutely no self" or what the Hindu's termed as ātman, to this False View of a Permanent, substantial, ultimately satisfactory nature of view of ātman, which is translated as both "soul" and "self", the Buddha Experienced the insubstantial, impermanent, and ultimately unsatisfactory, so he added the Prefix which NEGATES the base word "A-" if the word starts with a consonant, or as in this case "An-" since Ātmam (or attā in Pali) start with a vowel, the Buddha negates Ātman, with Anātman (Anattā in Pali) I also realize I was misspelling, by adding the hard "ā" as the first vowel, which you were spelling the Sanskrit word properly (that's grammatical, but another mistake I fully acknowledge.)
And this is my second point is that is surprising to know that DT Suzuki was using (or, more accurately, DT Suzuki's Japanese Dharma Commentary was translated into English) the term: "no ātman" as opposed to the proper Sanskrit term of: Anāman, or the Pali, which is closest to the language of the Buddha, Anattā (which is spelled correctly) But I wanted to clarify that when the commentary says "no ātman" that is precisely synonymous with my terminology, Anātman, (albeit my first comment was with the wrong spelling, "no ātman" = anātman.) This terminology speaks much more to the Buddha's response to the Hindu beliefs, or False Views, of his time
Lastly, again to clarify, when I quote "Suzuki roshi, I meant Shunryu Suzuki roshi, not DT Suzuki (Both of whom are widely known as the most preeminent Zen figures; although DT Suzuki introduced Ch'an, Shin and Zen to the US, as a Author, Translator of Chinese, and Scholar , while Shunryu Suzuk roshi was an Enlightened Zen Teacher, and founded the San Francisco Sen Center, among others, and brought the Practice of Zen to the US.
So, I am not going to try and clarify my points, because other than where I was mistaken, by misreading, and thus contradicting you, which I just pointed out the error of my misreading, my points about Experiential Insight and how the Experience has Many ways of describing the same Experience, is entirely accurate, and that once experienced, the various terms are easily reconciled.
My apologies for my errors in the technical misreading and for opposing your point, which I now understand and agree with. Okay, Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. _/\_ Gassho And keep blogging and practicing. because when the Insight/Stream Entry/Vipassana/Bodhicitta/Break the first 3 Fetters/Prajna/Wisdom/Emptiness/Śunyata occurs, you know EXACTLY what I mean, and how it ALL fits together Perfectly, and How CLOSE you've been to it, all along, and that this making it a belief of some Mythic Experience, that might arise in another lifetime is Ridiculous! That is what I Bl;og about, to Inspire Buddhist Practitioners, and to assist in guiding them into The Stream, or Bodhisattvahood. It's BOTH the MOST Mind-Blowing, Earth Shattering, yet Totally ordinary experience. Sounds like another paradox, I know..but I absolutely Know that not is, in fact, NOT!

[solon]

First of all. What you write is nothing but pure Gelugpa drivel. Only a fool addicted to forums like the dharma wheel, reddit or similar kid sites, would buy the crap you presented so incoherently in your unbalanced comment.

If you bothered to read this blog at all , and on a deeper level, you would see that it is about Mind Only,specifically buddha nature or the true self in us all, which is primordially pure, unborn and yet filled in all ten directions with its own highly dynamic and animative light (without this light you would not even be able to read these letters much less comprehend them).

The sunyata doctrine as you present it (very poorly might I add) is on the lowest level of Buddhist doctrine. To have a direct experience, that all phenomena are fundamentally empty of self (anatman) is kid stuff on a beginners level (bodhisattva 1st bhumi). Nothing much to brag about.

Your style of writing and the wall of text you splashed as a comment to the zennists excellent and thoughtful article tells me that you suffer from a strong cognitive distortion (probably by a high iontake of drugs presently or the past).

If you want to put your so-called self approved bodhisattva status on test, why dont you jump over the avatamsaka sutra part 4 (entering the dharma realm) and see how far you get in comparing your so-called "awakening" (laughs) with what a genuine bodhisattva is capable of.

This is a place for spiritual grown ups, not kids. So either man up and present something viable or buzz off.

[Dharmamitra Jeff Stefani]

Quoting tertiary Dharma books, and commenting on whatever "Pop Buddhism" is, besides the inherent belittling implied in the name, I speak only about my my own direct experiential wisdom, and have experienced Ānatman, (and the absolute experiential differentiation of Atman, as sited by Gautama Buddha, and 100s of Teachers of almost every school of Buddhism that I am aware of, from Sri Lankan Theravada to Tibetan, Ch'an and Zen, with the only exception being Pure Land, which I am not intimately familiar with, personally) in contrast to Atman, and can attest to the authenticity of the Pali Canon, Heart Sutra, or Diamond Sutra that Ānatman is Reality.
I haven't heard of this "Pop Buddhist" Dharma, but my own experience confirm the insubstantiality of a separate and substantial "Self" , and although I alway resonated with it o a visceral level, it wash;t until my direct, experience of Śunyata that the Heart Sutra became as clear and precise as the language of 1+1=2, in that All Things are Emptiness, and Emptiness is All Things... all things are the Primal Void, which is not born or destroyed, nor stained or pure, nor does it wax or wain, attainment too in Emptiness..."
It was this direct experience which layed to rest, for myself, any debate over the linguistic/semantic and historical debate over the compassionate Bodhisattva and "self-serving" Arhant, for once Stream Entry is Experienced, "The Emptiness of All Five Skandhas" is as clear as my hand is to my face, and the concept of compassionate Bodhisattva versus a Stream Winner is absolutely absurd, for having won Stream Entry, and seeing the Delusion of the concept of dualistic thinking, the concept of a "compassionate Being, for sake of all sentient beings" becomes a moot point. No sooner would I argue that my hand won't help my foot by removing a thorn stuck in it, would I argue that one who has awoken to Stream Entry/Broken the first 3 Fetters/experienced the arising of Absolute Bodhicitta were somehow distinctly different events, and that somehow Stream Entry could be cpable of experiencing any sense of "compassion" as my hand could be called "compassionate" for removing the thorn from my own foot...(as I once, like you are, debated Suttas and Sutras and Secondary and Tertiary Dharma) these "empty concepts" that the Theravada Stream Winner was somehow "selfish" in their quest compared to the very noble sounding idea of the Bodhisattva Ideal. (FACT: There is, in direct Experience, absolutely no difference between the Theravada Stream Winner and the Mahayana Bodhisattva, (nor the fundamental belief of Advaita)
For 20 years I practiced with diligence, for 11 years ordained in a Mahayana "Ecumenical buddhist Order" and traveled in my own theory and thought from a very Pali Canonical, Theravada introduction to the Dharma, or Dhamma, and gravitated to Sōtō Zen school, and my meditation settled in evolution upon Pure Awareness, or Shikantaza, as I no longer necessitated the breath as an anchor for my Mindfulness.
And after the experience of Stream Winning, or becoming a Bodhisattva (which is ultimately an oxymoronic statement, since the realization that there is fundamentally only the "Emptiness of all five skandhas" ) and found the Sutra, or Thread amongst other people that shared the experience and were outwardly vocal about it, from the Thai Forest Bhikkhu Ajahn Chah (and his students, Jack Kornfield and Ajahn Brahm,) to Eckhart Tolle and most recently, Adyashanti, and several "Zennist" such as Suzuki roshi, whom sums up this whole conceptualization of an experiential awareness EXPERIENCE (as is the whole rather absurd nature of the "issue" in your Blog) most eloquently and directly in his statement that: "Strictly speaking, there are no Enlightened Beings, only Enlightened Experiences." which perfectly describes the experience of Ānatman (not that I do not see the foolishness in what is frequently misused and misunderstood conceptualization of a "non-concept," regarding the terminology of translating Ānatman as "No-Self" leaves much to be misunderstood, but, then again, as any "Zennist" should know, it's not about "concepts" and "understanding" as it about Direct Experience.
Lastly, just to clarify that once a person [(who is ultimately śunyata/Emptiness/Ānatman/Vipassana/Prajna all concepts, or "fingers pointing at the moon" are all referring to the same Experiential Insight, and comprised of phenomenally ever-changing flow of dharmas, or the "Five Skandhas" (dharmas with a lowercase "d" which refers to the constantly fluctuating components of phenomenon (versus noumenon, as is the terminology of Western Philosophy, which is another commonly misused term, in the discussion of "concepts" ] that Experiences this transcendental Insight into the True nature of Reality, can and will still operate via the ego, or "self" and speak from the first-person. But that too is as the Buddha refered to in his often misunderstood statement that in his entire life, Buddha never uttered a single word, is exactly the same as Suzuki roshi's quotes that, strictly speaking, there are no Enlightened Beings (and thus no one to utter a single word as a Buddha, or Stream Winner, or Bodhisattva or one who has experienced Śunyata or Ānatman) only Enlightened Experiences, and then we are still left with the "smoke and mirrors" and delusional appearance of a fixed and separate entity, known as "self" or I/me/you, etc. So having has this Experience, I will speak as I, despite Knowing that I am not fixed or separate "self" or ego, or whatever terminology is popular of the times.
I know this is long and somewhat convoluted, and esoteric to those unfamiliar with Buddhist Scholars, and their debates of concepts... my point is that once one actually Experiences it, then it ALL makes sense and actually fits together with perfect clarity, that which to the Academic or philosophical, or conceptual understanding will always remain to appear as paradoxical. But that is what always attracted me to Ch'an and Zen, and the Heart Sutra. For at a rational level, I could never explain the meaning, none-the-less, explain the seemingly contradictory nature of the various schools of Buddhism, which now make perfect sense. (Just as this may sound nonsensical, when in actuality, it is perfectly clear to "ANYONE" that has actually awoken to the Reality of Emptiness/Śunyata or Ānatman.
_/\_ Gassho