I don’t know if Ananda K. Coomaraswamy said that, “Buddhism is most famous today for everything it originally never taught.” Even if he didn’t say this, it is nevertheless true that Buddhism, as conceived in the average practitioner’s mind, is Buddhism in name only. This is especially true when it comes to the subject of the âtman or there being the unconditioned transcendent at the core of the Buddha’s teaching.
Those with whom I argue on this subject are quite adamant—and quite convinced—that the Buddha was dead set against the Hindu âtman. The main thrust of their argument is that the Buddha denied the view of eternalism (sasvatadarsana) which in their mind refers to anyone who believes in a transcendent self. In a previous blog, contrary to this, I pointed out that an eternalist is one who believes that the Five Aggregates (khandhas/skandha) are eternal. This agrees with the commentary to the Udana (Udanatthakatha).
“They declare material form to be the self and the world, stating such to be not only the self and the world but also eternal; they declare sensation ... perception ... the formations ... consciousness to be the self and the world, stating such to be not only the self and the world but also eternal” (trans. Masefield, The Udana Commentary, p. 882).
This makes a lot more sense insofar as the Five Aggregates are what I like to call the bad boys of Buddhism. They are not only murderous, but they belong to Mara the Evil One. Given this, we shouldn’t identify our self with the Five Aggregates. Those who eternize something such as the Five Aggregates which are impermanent, suffering and not the true self are the eternalists.
The point the Buddha is trying to make is that the Five Aggregates are not imperishable; nor is he advocating the view that all things perish without rebirth which is ucchedadarsana or the view of nihilism. Nowhere, in fact, does the Buddha deny the self; only that we should not identify with that which is not our self in the example of the Five Aggregates. To do so throws us into rebirth. On this very subject Nagarjuna agrees with me who says:
“Two types of dristi: the view of eternalism (sasvatadristi) and the view of nihilism (ucchedadristi). Sasvatadristi is an adherence of the mind (cittaksanti) which holds the five aggregates (skandha) to be eternal (nitya); ucchedadristi is an adherence of the mind which holds the five aggregates to be perishable. Beings often fall into these two wrong views. The bodhisattvas who have suppressed them within themselves are also able to suppress them in others in order to establish them in the Middle Way (madhyama pratipad)” (Mahaprajñâparamita Sastra, VOL. I, Chapter I — XV p. 340).
Understanding what eternalism means is not too difficult. But what it is not is the belief in a self or âtman. Yes, the Buddha was against both eternalism and nihilism; but he never says abandon desire for what is the self. He never taught this.
Comments