Saturday, July 11, 2020

The difference between the false self and the true Self (Buddha nature)

           

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.”

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. […]

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]


 to be continued




[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.’”
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.”
Samyutta Nikaya 22.46
“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.”
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. 
[12] The Mahayana Angulimâla Sutra , translation by Stephen Hodge


0 comentarii:

Dharma talks on my youtube channel