The substantialism of the Buddha

What do modern Buddhist writers and scholars mean by ‘substantialist view’ as it pertains to Buddhism?  Distilling the contemporary Buddhist literature that mentions this term, they mean by it any belief in essence; such a belief being hinduistic which amounts to a put down.

Despite this, it is difficult to makes sense of this term in light of the actual discourses of the Buddha because the Buddha did not deny the âtman (essence) in unambiguous terms.  In fact, the general thrust of his discourses, when it came to the five khandhas/skandhas or aggregates, was only to reject views of âtman—never the âtman, itself.  Views of âtman are entirely based on the five khandhas.  In addition to the Buddha's rejection of such views, the Buddha also rejected annihilationism.  

To reiterate, âtman views the Buddha informs us, are based on the khandhas.  The Buddha says, for example, “When there is form, bhikkhus, by clinging to form, by adhering to form, a view of self arises [ditto with the rest of the khandhas]” (S. iii. 185-186) (The brackets are mine.).  What the Buddha is saying here deserves more attention.  Form or rûpa is transitory; by implication the âtman cannot be transitory nor can it suffer.  The same goes with the remaining four khandhas, that is, feeling, perception, volitional impressions, and consciousness.  The Buddha then tells his followers that these five khandhas are not the âtman which in Sanskrit and Pali is rendered anâtman and anattâ.  

Relative to the khandhas, the Buddha is telling his followers that the âtman—the Buddha’s âtman—transcends the five khandhas.  Of each khandha the Buddha says: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self (âtman).  This rejection further implies a knowing of what the âtman is, certainly enough to say that this particular khandha is not my âtman.

Buddhism teaches a unique form of substantialism or essentialism.  Buddhism is not non-substantialist. Âtman in the Buddha’s hands is a transcendent essence or substance which is beyond the grasp and scope of the five khandhas; the khandhas acting as the basis for the formation of views of âtman.  This leads to the question, is the counter to substantialism, this being non-substantialism, just a cover by which to smuggle annihilationism into Buddhism?  I am inclined to think so.

Comments

[Eidolon]

One *sees* the absolute? With the eyes one sees it? One feels it? One hears it? With *what* does one "see" it, I wonder? (I'm giving you grief for Christmas, just kidding, but you "see" how hard it is to describe this in words...).

[Thezennist]

Chris Talbott: The Middle Way refers to the arya-ashtanga-marga (noble eightfold way). The 'Dharma by the middle' refers to the transcendence of 'all exists'(sabbam atthī) and 'all does not exist' (sabbaṃ natthī’) which is the true substance, or the same, the true essence. Buddhism is not metaphysical in the sense of being speculative. Rather it is mystical. There is an actual awakening that occurs by which one sees the absolute.

[Chris Talbott]

This seems very confused. I do not see anything reified in the teachings. Zen in particular re-emphasizes this attitude. The middle way implies not resting in either substance or non-substance. Transcendence in Buddhadhamma seems to me precisely the rejection of the metaphysical stance that you seem to be stating here.
If you can improve my understanding, I would be grateful.

[Don]

As Ram Dass says - you want to "know" the absolute. You can only "be" it, because when you experience it, "you" are not present. And you are SO right, an awful lot of Buddhists spend time feeling superior to the "misguided" Hindus. I love both paths - it's foolish to argue that the many Hindu saints and realized beings had not "gone, gone, gone beyond"

[Methexis]

Merry Christmas Zennists! I cannot but copy/paste here the only good Christmas song ever written:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPm3CWvDmvc