A staunch self-denier

 If the Buddha, as a staunch self-denier, were to have actually argued with a sage who claimed to have awakened to the âtman, the Buddha probably would have lost.  

That there exists a debate going on in Buddhism between Buddhists who claim that the Buddha was never a self-denier and those who claim otherwise, largely depends on how one chooses to interpret statements made by the Buddha.  In other words, it is a special kind of debate that were it to take place outside the discourses of Buddhism, would be considerably different.  

First, permit me first to show a passage that two Buddhists on the opposite side of the fence might disagree with.

“He beholds the self purified (visuddhamattânam) of all these evil unskilled states, he beholds the self freed (vimuttamattânam)” (M. i. 283). 

Is this passage from a self-denying Buddha?  Or is this from a Buddha who upholds the self or âtman? What we do know is that this passage might be debated upon until the cows come home.  

Here I have conceived how an exchange might go if a self-denying Buddha had encountered a sage who had realized the âtman. By no means is this exchange perfect but I hope it illustrates that the Buddha would have had a difficult time as a self-denier with someone like Shankara, for example, who was the main representative of Advaita-Vedanta.

Sage:  Good Gautama, is it true that you teach there is no âtman beyond the pale of the psychophysical body; that with the body’s demise, the âtman is also no more?

Self-denying Buddha:  Yes, it is true sage that I teach this.  As I look into the this psychophysical body I see nothing resembling your âtman.  In physical shape there is only physical shape, in feeling only feeling, in perception only perception, in volition only volition and in consciousness only consciousness.

Sage:  Good Gautama, I have realized differently.  The âtman is not physical shape, feeling, perception, volition or consciousness.  When these constituents arise the âtman is unaffected by their arising; when they are no more, the âtman remains unaffected by their absence.   Using an analogy, if a potter makes a beautiful clay pot, the clay is not affected by being made into a beautiful pot. If this same clay pot were to break, losing its shape and beauty, the clay would remain unaffected by the breaking of the pot.  So also is the âtman like this.  When the psychophysical body arises and eventually expires, the âtman remains unchanged.

Self-denying Buddha:  Good Sage, when I look for this âtman of yours by way of my psychophysical body, I cannot find it.  Therefore it does not exist.  It is an illusion which you have reified.

Sage:  Good Gautama, the psychophysical body is only a manifestation of the âtman like a pot is a manifestation of clay or rope is a manifestation of valvaja grass.  In dependence upon clay does the pot arise; the same with rope that depends upon valvaja grass.  The âtman is never manifest as you believe it is, which is why you cannot behold it.  When one completely stops cling to these various manifestations, only then do they merge with the âtman which is my Nirvana.  Earlier you said that in physical shape there is only physical shape, in feeling only feeling, in perception only perception, in volition only volition and in consciousness only consciousness. This makes no sense. Now let me ask you: From what do these constituents arise?

Self-denying Buddha:  They are an illusion.  They don’t exist. In physical shape there is no physical shape, in feeling there is no feeling, in perception there is no perception, in volition there is no volition and in consciousness there is no consciousness.

Sage:  Good Gautama you have contradicted yourself.  Next, let me ask you, when there is no physical shape, no feeling, no perception, no volition and no consciousness, what remains?

Self-denying Buddha:  There is the Void which is absence.

Sage:  But from what did physical shape, feeling, perception, volition and consciousness arise from?  Surely not from this Void which is absence.  So far you have taken an annihilationist position only addressing the destruction of these constituents or what you call the Void.  Now tell me, from what did these constituents arise?

Self-denying Buddha:  They arose from avidya or ignorance.

Sage:  Ignorance of what good Gautama?

Self-denying Buddha:  Ignorance that these constituents are not arising because there is only the Void or absence.

Sage:  As I hear your Dharma, the arising psychophysical constituents do not arise because there is really only the Void or absence.  This is annihilationism because it denies that things or constituents arise.  

Our self-denying Buddha offers us nothing soteriological, except annihilation disguised in various forms such as anâtman, Voidness, and absence (abhâva).  It is not hard to imagine why Buddhism all but disappeared  in India only to be replaced by Vedanta which, ironically, owed a great deal to Buddhism (cp. Nakamura, A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy, Part One, p. 131).

Comments

[Neti-Neti Yeti]

This is the most significant inclusion to the topic in at least 1000 years.

[azanshi]

To most 'Buddhist' practitioners, procedure comes before substance, and form before fact.

This is significant of someone endowed with a parochial mind. One that merely parrots what is lacking, which is a focus of the will towards the unborn which equals the betterment and awakening of spirit and not as the spiritually defiling body-consciousness desires, improvement and liberation of that three to four pound of grey matter; the latter being a process Buddha Gautama deemed as completely impossible and a waste of extremely precious time.