Many Buddhists nowadays might get confused when they read the word “Self” in my previous article because they remember the doctrine of non-self or non-ego that they heard in other parts of the Buddha’s teachings. However, they have to understand the difference between the self that is negated and the true Self that is affirmed in many sutras.
The
self that is negated is the idea of a permanent entity that goes unchanged from
life to life. This can be refuted by a simple observation of our personalities.
Nobody stays the same at all ages and in every period of his present life. I am
42 years old now when I am writing these lines and I can say with certainty
that I am not exactly the same person I was at 16 or 20, nor will I be the same
if I reach 80. There is, of course, a causal or karmic continuity between me at
20 and me at 42, but definitely, we are not exactly the same person. Anybody
can see the changes in his body and mind and certainly after two or three more
rebirths the changes will be even greater. This
is why sometimes it is said in Buddhism that there is no soul or no self, in
the sense that there is no unchanged identity which passes from year to year
and life after life. We do not go through the present life and the endless
lives of samsaric existence with the same mind or body, so we can affirm
without any mistake that there is no permanent self in this unenlightened and
illusory driven personality.
However,
the Self that is affirmed in the Buddha Dharma is not related with our samsaric
personalities, but with the Buddha nature as Shakyamuni said in Mahaparinirvana Sutra,
“The Self spoken
of in Buddhism is the Buddha-Nature.”[1]
Only
the false self, usually called mind-stream, which is a dynamic and ever
changing ensemble of various sensations, feelings, ideas, thoughts, etc, is
born again and again in various planes of existence, but NOT the true Self or
Buddha nature.
“Buddha-Nature
is not something that has been made. Only, it is overspread by defilement. That
is why I say that beings do not possess the Self.”[2]
“Beings do not possess the Self” means that unenlightened personalities are
NOT the true Self or Buddha nature because Buddha nature “is not something that has been made” – it is not the product of
ideas, sensations, feelings, illusions, blind passions and karma. Unlike our
unenlightened mind-streams, the true Self or Buddha nature is eternal and
always existing, uncreated, independent and unchanged.
Unfortunately,
some Buddhist disciples are against using the term “Self”, stating that it is
alien to Buddhism. They have this attitude because they do not know or don’t
want to accept that it was used by Shakyamuni himself in many sutras or because
they do not get the true meaning of Self. Thus, they misuse the teaching on
non-self as explained above and do not get the difference between the false
self (non-self) and the true Self (Buddha nature),
“When non-self
is talked about, common mortals say that there cannot be Self in the Buddhist
teaching. One who is wise should know that non-self
is a temporary existence (samsaric/unenlightened existence) and is not true.
Knowing thus, one should not have any doubt. When the hidden Tathagatagarbha (Tathagata
essence/Buddha nature) is stated as being empty and quiet[3],
common mortals will think of ceasing and extinction. ‘One who is wise knows
that the Tathagata is Eternal and Unchanging.’”[4]
“The hidden
Tathagatagarbha (Tathagata essence/Buddha nature) is stated as being empty” refer to the
fact that the Buddha nature is empty of
illusion and blind passions, but NOT empty of itself or empty of true Reality[5].
Only samsaric phenomena that are the product of causes and conditions do not
have real existence while the Buddha nature is eternal and unchanging because
it is the true reality, uncreated and independent of causes and conditions. Being
empty of illusion and blind passions or empty of any samsaric phenomena does
NOT mean that Buddha nature is non-existent or extinct as some “common mortals” (people without
Mahayana wisdom) think.
Whenever
the Buddha used expressions like “non-self” or “there is no self”, He referred
to the unenlightened personalities of samsaric beings, and whenever He said that
there is a Self, He indicated to the Buddha nature. Beings have no self in the
sense that their mind-streams are constantly changing and depend on causes and
conditions, and have a true Self (with caps lock “S”) in the sense that their
true nature beyond the various layers of delusions and blind passions is Buddha
nature. This is how we should understand such things and always make the clear
distinction between false self (non-self) and true Self.
Also,
sometimes the Buddha denies the idea of self in the sense of a creator god-universal
self called Brahma who is, in fact, just a mere powerful and mortal god, the
product of past karma and still a prisoner of samsara.
In
conclusion, any teaching about the non-self given by the Buddha is provisional
and applies exclusively to the realm of samsaric phenomena and samsaric beings,
while the teaching on true Self represents His true intention in explaining the
indestructible Buddha nature.
In
the Mahaparinirvana Sutra it is said,
“The empty is
the totality of samsara and the non-empty is Great Nirvana. Non-Self is
samsara, and the Self is Great Nirvana.”[6]
“What is based
on causal relations has no Self. Non-self is suffering and empty. The body of
the Tathagata is not based on causal relations. Because there are no causal
relations, we say that there is the Self. The Self is the Eternal, Bliss, Self,
and the Pure.”[7]
The
ultimate body of any Tathagata or Buddha is uncreated and eternal, always
existing and not dependent on causal relations. This is why it is the True Self
or Buddha nature. Only that which depends on causes and conditions lacks self
and is truly empty.[8]
In
the Queen Srimala Sutra it is said,
“Bhagavan, the
Buddha Nature is neither an impermanent mundane self, nor personality, nor
samsaric living being nor destiny. The Buddha Nature is not a realm for
misguided sentient beings who adhere to belief in a substantially existent
personality or for those who adhere to wrong views and have thoughts which are
confused by emptiness (who do not understand the real meaning of emptiness). O’
Bhagavan, the Buddha Nature is the womb of the Dharmakaya, the womb of the
Dharmadhatu[9], the womb of the
Noumenon, the womb of the inherent purity.”[10]
In
the Dharma Drum Sutra it is said,
“Kasyapa said to
the Buddha, ‘Please turn to no-self, having talked about Self for a while.’
The Buddha told Kasyapa, ‘I explain the meaning of no-self to destroy the worldly view (wrong view) of self.”
The Buddha told Kasyapa, ‘I explain the meaning of no-self to destroy the worldly view (wrong view) of self.”
So,
the Buddha taught the truth that samsaric phenomena do not have a self in order
to help them abandon clinging to things that depend on causes and conditions.
However, such a teaching does not imply that there is no true Self beyond
illusions
Bodhisattva
Vasubandhu also said,
“In pure
voidness Buddhas achieve the supreme Self of selflessness, and realize the
spiritual greatness of the Self by discovering the Pure Self.”[11]
Here again, the Pure Self or the supreme
Self of selflessness stands for the Buddha nature.
The
right view of the Buddha Dharma is to accept the existence of the true Self or
Buddha nature, which is the real YOU, hidden inside the many layers of “your” deluded
and ever changing samsaric personality.
In
the Queen Srimala Sutra it is said,
“Know that those
living beings who have devout faith in the Buddha and view the Buddha as having
Permanence, Bliss, Self and Purity do not stray away from the correct path. In
truth it is those living beings that have the Right View. Why is this? Because
the Dharmakaya (the aspect of ultimate reality/Buddha nature) of the World
Honored One is the perfection of permanence, the perfection of bliss, the
perfection of the Noumenon Self, and the perfection of purity. Those living
beings who see the Dharmakaya of the Buddha in this way are the ones who have
seen correctly. Those who see correctly are called the Sons and Daughters of
the Lord, born from His heart, born from His mouth, born from the Dharma, those
who act as if they are a manifestation of the Dharma, heirs to the Dharma.”
Those
who deny the existence of the real Self or Buddha nature by misunderstanding or
misinterpreting the various teachings of Shakyamuni on the non-self of samsaric
phenomena are in a grave error and they should be regarded as heretics and
proponents of wrong views,
“Those who
propound the doctrine of non-Self are to be shunned in the religious rites of
the monks, and not to be spoken to, for they are offenders of the Buddhist
doctrines, having embraced the dual views of Being and non-Being
[existence and non-existence].”
“The doctrine of
the Self shines brilliantly; it is like the rising of the apocalyptic fire
[lit., the fire of the end of the world, yug-anta-agni], burning up the forest
of Self-lessness, wiping away the faults of the heretics.”
In
the Angulimala Sutra it is said,
“Then Angulimala
replied to the elder renunciate Dabba, ‘People who lack learning and have
wrong views get angry with those who teach the Tathagata-garbha (the doctrine
that all beings have the Tathagata essence or Buddha nature) to the world, and
expound non-self in place of the Self as their doctrine. He who teaches the
Tathagata-garbha, even at the expense of his own life, knowing that such
people are inexperienced with words and lacking in balance, has true patience
and teaches for the benefit of the world. […]
Then Aṅgulimala
said to Purṇa-maitrayaṇi-putra, ‘Ah, elder Purṇa, your practice is that of a
mosquito, for you are unable to teach a Dharma-discourse. Even a mosquito can
make a buzzing noise, so be silent, you foolish man who are like a mosquito!
Purṇa, those who think that no-self is the Dharma, because they do not understand the Tathagata’s underlying meaning, fall like moths into the lamp of ignorance. […]
Purṇa, those who think that no-self is the Dharma, because they do not understand the Tathagata’s underlying meaning, fall like moths into the lamp of ignorance. […]
Those who were shameless crows in previous lives, who
were extremely ungrateful and ate unclean food, are even now impoverished,
lacking in shame, and do not have faith in the Tathagata-garbha. In future
lives too, these are none other than those who will become agitated upon
hearing about the Tathagata-garbha from somebody who gives beneficial
teachings”.[12]
[1] Mahaparinirvana Sutra, translated by Kosho Yamamoto from
Dharmakshema’s Chinese version, edition printed by Dr Tony Page, 2004,verse
415, p.68
[2] Mahaparinirvana Sutra, translated by Kosho Yamamoto from
Dharmakshema’s Chinese version, edition printed by Dr Tony Page, 2004,verse
451, p.75
[3] Being “quiet” indicates that Buddha nature is not
evident, but hidden under the many layers of our unenlightened personality or
the false self.
[4] Mahaparinirvana Sutra, translated by Kosho Yamamoto from
Dharmakshema’s Chinese version, edition printed by Dr Tony Page, 2004,verse
443, p.74
[5] I will talk about this very important aspect of Buddha nature being
empty of illusions but not empty of itself in the next chapter.
[6] Mahaparinirvana Sutra, translated by
Kosho Yamamoto from Dharmakshema’s Chinese version,
https://www.nirvanasutra.net/stephenhodgetrans4.htm
[7] Mahaparinirvana Sutra, translated by Kosho Yamamoto from
Dharmakshema’s Chinese version, edition printed by Dr Tony Page, 2004,verse 1184, p.270
[8] Mentions of the
true Self and what is not Self can also be found in the Pali canon, from which
I quote just a few,
” ‘But what have
you, young men, to do with a woman ?’ ‘We, Lord, a group of as many as thirty
friends of high standing, with our wives, were amusing ourselves in this
woodland grove ; one had no wife, so a woman of low standing was brought along
for him. Then, Lord, as we were heedlessly amusing ourselves, that woman of low
standing, taking our belongings, ran away. Consequently, Lord, we friends,
doing our friend a service and seeking for that woman, are roaming about this
woodland grove.’
” What do you
think of this, young men? Which is better for you, that you should seek
for a woman or that you should seek for the Self ?’ ‘Truly, this were better
for us, Lord, that we should seek for the Self.’ ‘Well then, young men, you sit
down, I will teach you Dharma.’”
(Source:
Mahavagga I 31-32 The Book of the Discipline (Vinaya Pitaka) Volume IV (Mahavagga),
translated by I.B. Horner, M.A).
Here
Shakyamuni says that we must not confuse form, feeling, perception, mental
formations, consciousness with the Self or Buddha nature,
“Thus it was heard by me. At one time the Blessed One was living in the deer park of Isipatana near Benares. There, indeed, the Blessed One addressed the group of five monks.
‘Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to suffering and it should obtain regarding form: ‘May my form be thus, may my form not be thus’; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to suffering and it does not obtain regarding form: ‘May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.’
‘Feeling, O monks, is not-self; if feeling were self, then feeling would not lead to suffering and it should obtain regarding feeling: ‘May my feeling be thus, may my feeling not be thus’; and indeed, O monks, since feeling is not-self, therefore feeling leads to suffering and it does not obtain regarding feeling: ‘May my feeling be thus, may my feeling not be thus.’
‘Perception, O monks, is not-self; if perception were self, then perception would not lead to suffering and it should obtain regarding perception: ‘May my perception be thus, may my perception not be thus’; and indeed, O monks, since perception is not-self, therefore, perception leads to suffering and it does not obtain regarding perception: ‘May my perception be thus, may my perception not be thus.’
‘Mental formations, O monks, are not-self; if mental formations were self, then mental formations would not lead to suffering and it should obtain regarding mental formations: ‘May my perception be thus, may my mental formations not be thus’; and indeed, O monks, since mental formations are not-self, therefore, mental formations lead to suffering and it does not obtain regarding mental formations: ‘May my mental formations be thus, may my mental formations not be thus.’
‘Consciousness, O monks, is not-self; if consciousness were self, then consciousness would not lead to suffering and it should obtain regarding consciousness: ‘May my consciousness be thus, may my consciousness not be thus’; and indeed, O monks, since consciousness is not-self, therefore, consciousness leads to suffering and it does not obtain regarding consciousness: ‘May my consciousness be thus, may my consciousness not be thus.’”
“Thus it was heard by me. At one time the Blessed One was living in the deer park of Isipatana near Benares. There, indeed, the Blessed One addressed the group of five monks.
‘Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to suffering and it should obtain regarding form: ‘May my form be thus, may my form not be thus’; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to suffering and it does not obtain regarding form: ‘May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.’
‘Feeling, O monks, is not-self; if feeling were self, then feeling would not lead to suffering and it should obtain regarding feeling: ‘May my feeling be thus, may my feeling not be thus’; and indeed, O monks, since feeling is not-self, therefore feeling leads to suffering and it does not obtain regarding feeling: ‘May my feeling be thus, may my feeling not be thus.’
‘Perception, O monks, is not-self; if perception were self, then perception would not lead to suffering and it should obtain regarding perception: ‘May my perception be thus, may my perception not be thus’; and indeed, O monks, since perception is not-self, therefore, perception leads to suffering and it does not obtain regarding perception: ‘May my perception be thus, may my perception not be thus.’
‘Mental formations, O monks, are not-self; if mental formations were self, then mental formations would not lead to suffering and it should obtain regarding mental formations: ‘May my perception be thus, may my mental formations not be thus’; and indeed, O monks, since mental formations are not-self, therefore, mental formations lead to suffering and it does not obtain regarding mental formations: ‘May my mental formations be thus, may my mental formations not be thus.’
‘Consciousness, O monks, is not-self; if consciousness were self, then consciousness would not lead to suffering and it should obtain regarding consciousness: ‘May my consciousness be thus, may my consciousness not be thus’; and indeed, O monks, since consciousness is not-self, therefore, consciousness leads to suffering and it does not obtain regarding consciousness: ‘May my consciousness be thus, may my consciousness not be thus.’”
Anatta-lakkhana
Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic, SN 22.59
“At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, form is impermanent…. Feeling is impermanent…. Preception is impermanent…. Volitional formations are impermanent…. Consciousness is impermanent. What is Impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is non-self. What is non-self should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my Self.”
“At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, form is impermanent…. Feeling is impermanent…. Preception is impermanent…. Volitional formations are impermanent…. Consciousness is impermanent. What is Impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is non-self. What is non-self should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my Self.”
Samyutta Nikaya 22.46
“Bhikkhu you should abandon desire for whatever is non self”
“Bhikkhu you should abandon desire for whatever is non self”
Samyutta
Nikaya, 22.68
“Bhikkhu,you should abandon desire for whatever does not belong to self.”
“Bhikkhu,you should abandon desire for whatever does not belong to self.”
Samyutta Nikaya, 22.69
[9] Literally
‘the essence or expanse of phenomena’. All-encompassing space. Dharmadhatu
is synonymous with Buddha nature. It also has the meaning of “sphere of reality”.
[10] Queen Srimala and her Lion’s Roar Sutra, verse 108, translated
by Tsultrim Gyurme, https://whatdobuddhistsbelieve.wordpress.com/teachings/queen-srimala-sutra
[11] Vasubandhu on
the Sutralamkara 9:23, Thurman
translation.
0 comentarii:
Post a Comment