There is a major prejudice in Buddhism in favor of the belief that the Buddha denied the self or ātman. This could be one of the greatest misunderstandings in the history of any religion.
But did the Buddha really say that this finite, perishable body of mine that I was born with is all that I am; that it is, essentially, my self; that when it meets death, my self also dies? The answer is he neither said this nor even implied it.
From another perspective, how might Gotama know there is no self or ātman? According to F.H. Bradley in this book, The Principles of Logic, “We should never trust a negative judgement until we have seen its positive ground.” In the example of the denial of self there is no positive ground or basis for it. So the negative judgement, “There is no self or ātman,” cannot be trusted.
However, if the Buddha’s denial of self was only relative to this perishable, mortal body of ours, namely, that the self is not here, the negative judgment makes perfect sense insofar as the positive ground or basis is this temporal body.
The next question is, did the Buddha deny a self or ātman to what is perishable? In fact he did. This perishable entity is the five aggregates consisting of material form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness. And are the followers of the Buddha told by the Buddha to reject each aggregates as being their self? Yes they are. We see this rejection in the Mahāpuṇṇama Sutta.
"What do you think, mendicants? Is form permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, sir.” “But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?” “Suffering, sir.” “But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?” “No, sir.” “What do you think, mendicants? Is feeling … perception … choices … consciousness permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, sir.” “But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?” “Suffering, sir.” “But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?” “No, sir.” “So you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ You should truly see any kind of feeling … perception … choices … consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near, all consciousness—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ Seeing this, a learned noble disciple becomes disillusioned with form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. Being disillusioned they become dispassionate. Being dispassionate they’re freed. When freed, they know ‘it is freed’. They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’”
Despite the evidence to the contrary in the example just laid out, what is the reason for perpetuating this misunderstanding that the Buddha denied the self or ātman when in fact the ātman is always implied? To be frank I have no good solid answer. I am still somewhat amazed that scholars and monks could be so stupid.
Comments