There is no scriptural warrant for arguing the Buddha denied, categorically, the self or âtman. Peter Harvey, recognizes this fact also who writes that “the early sources used by the Theravada are bereft of any such explicit denial. The idea that Buddhism, 'denies the self', though, has become a commonplace of Religious Studies” (The Selfless Mind, p. 7). The assumption that the Buddha denied the self, to my mind, serves more than any other misunderstanding of Buddhism, to make it almost impossible to understand. It turns Buddhism upside down.
If any thing that is remarkable about Buddhism is that it straightaway takes as a given the first-person. It is only from this basis that we can begin to make spiritual progress, that is, to separate the first-person from what is not the first-person, namely, the anâtman or in Pali, anattâ. Anâtman, in other words, is the false self or simply, what is not myself. The Buddha wants us to truly understand that this temporal body of ours, including our thoughts, is not who we are (we are always the first-person). From the Buddha’s enlightened perspective, we transcend all this, although it is difficult for us to realize this, since we are not yet awakened.
Viewing this temporal body of mine, including my thoughts, it is impermanent. Since conception, it has been constantly changing along with my thoughts. There is nothing permanent about it. It has suffered, too. It has never once been totally free of suffering and the eventuality of death. Because of this, my temporal body, including my thoughts, cannot be an adequate refuge for me. Only the first-person or âtman can be a refuge. But in my confused condition I am not yet liberated (nirvana) from adhering to the temporal body. This explains why the Buddha said this:
“Therefore, Ananda, stay as those who have the self as an island (attadîpâ), as those who have the self as refuge (attasaranâ), as those who have no other refuge; as those who have the dharma as an island, as those who have dhamma as refuge, as those who have no other refuge” (D. ii. 100).
The Buddha never tells anyone to take the anâtman, or what is not the self, as refuge for various reasons. It is always the self or the first-person which is our refuge. In the commentaries, the self is a synonym of island (Sasaki, Linguistic Approach to Buddhist Thought, 60) so we can read the following as meaning our self or the first-person and Nibbana as the attained first-person.
“There is an island, an island which you cannot go beyond. It is a place of nothingness, a place of non-possession and of non-attachment. It is the total end of death and decay, and this is why I call it Nibbana [ the extinguished, the cool]” (Sutta-Nipata 1094).
Reflecting on this, truly we cannot go beyond self/island. It is truly a place of no thingness which transcends our temporal world. To fully realize the substance of self is liberation or nirvana. Not to realize it is to attach to the false self or anâtman which is not an island.
Comments