Not No-Self: Not-Self
Continuing with our theme of how the Buddha’s Teachings go “Against the Stream”, we’ll look at one of the most famous Discourses in the entire Pali Canon, the Anattalakkhana Sutta. That Discourse is widely used to support the notion that the Buddha denied the existence of a “self”, in the sense that I, myself, am writing this comment. That’s just silly; the kind of time-wasting wordplay that distracts us from the intertwined tasks of embracing dukkha, letting go of craving, experiencing cessation, and bringing the Path to life.
The term “anattalakkhana” is a compound. The first syllable “an” negates the meaning of what follows, as the “a” in our word “atheist”, or the “an” in “anarchy”. In the animistic theories that were held by many brahmins in the Buddha’s time, “atta” means “soul” : the permanent identity that exists separate and distinct from a person’s current worldly form and that continues to exist when that worldly form ends, transmigrating to a new worldly form. The new form, because it is informed by the same eternal soul, is in some significant way identical with the first form: it is the same Self. Finally, “lakkhana” means “sign” or “characteristic”, in the sense of evidence, or an identifying mark. So the name of the sutta can be translated, approximately and long-windedly, as “The evidence for the non-existence of an essential Self”.
In this sutta, and in most of the other teachings of the Canon in which he addresses the ontological question of whether or not a “Self” exists, the term the Buddha uses is that term atta. And to fully understand what he’s about here, I think we have to remember what a central role that term played in the Brahminic tradition which the Buddha confronted in his Teaching. To that Brahminic tradition, and especially to what was, in the Buddha’s time, the very avant-garde gloss on that tradition that was emerging in the Upanishads, the atta (Sanskrit atman) was not only objectively real, but it was central to the notion of salvation that was the goal of the tradition. Brahman, the Godhead of which God Brahma is an avatar, was the central Reality, the source of all being. Each individual person had his or her own Essential Reality (the atta), beside which everything else about the person was illusory. The goal of all spiritual practice was to recognize that one’s atta was, in fact, identical to Brahman, and to experience the merging of atta with Brahman, Self with Godhead.
In the Anattalakkhana Sutta, the Buddha leaves no doubt about what he thinks of the notion of such an entity—an eternal Self or soul. He examines all of the places where one might locate such an atta—a person’s body, that person’s perceptions, feelings, ideas and conceptual formations, the consciousness itself, and he finds each of those incapable of providing the foundation for an atta, a permanent Self or a soul. No matter where you look, you will see the same thing: “This is not mine; this is not what I am; this is not my Self.”
Yet here I am, writing this post. And I intend to continue the project I’ve begun, to cultivate the Buddha’s Eightfold Path in my life. So how do I reconcile this “I”, seeking reconciliation, with that “Self”, that atta, that is “not mine, not what I am, not my Self”? It’s not just a semantic problem, rejecting “ego” but allowing “I”. Our difficulty with the Buddha’s Dhamma here, I think, has to do with something more basic and more important than mere semantics (although I’m not certain that semantics is ever really “mere”). It has to do with how we understand experience.
In our modern materialistic understanding of the world, we make truth claims based on object identification; this is ‘A’; that is ‘Not-A’. Very Aristotelian. And objects are defined by their attributes or properties. So when we speak of a Self, we imply that there is an existent object, with the identifying name “Self”, and with certain properties that determine its location, its dynamic interaction with other objects, its particular capabilities, its distinguishing characteristics, etc. All of those properties together establish an object’s duration, the span of time through which it has existence as a distinct object. And the distinctive nature of the object determines the nature of our experience of it. The object, as a real thing, precedes and conditions our experience of it.
But that, it seems to me, is not how the Buddha understood experience. In the Buddha’s understanding, all that we have to deal with, all that we can know, is this immediate experience, and all experience is conditioned by prior experience and our response to that. Our experience of the world is our only way of knowing it, and our experience of the world is always in process. Experience not only precedes the objects of experience, but our habit of “objectification” is what conditions dukkha.
There is a revealing passage in the Dhammapada, perhaps the best-known and most widely read text from the Pali Canon, in which the Buddha presents a very different take on the notion of “Self” than he does in the Anattalakkhana Sutta.
As the fletcher sharpens the arrow;
As the carpenter shapes the block of wood;
So the wise person constructs the Self.
The atta that the Buddha denies existence to in the Anattalakkhana Sutta is the Brahminical atta: the Self/Soul that continues from life to life, conditioning each life by the kamma it’s accumulated in previous lives. That conception of an Essential Self is limiting and constrictive. It is only because such a Self does not exist, in fact, that the wise person is free to construct this Self here and now, this discriminating “I” that can make ethical choices, sign contracts, raise a family, take OLLI courses, write essays, learn new skills, and summon up the effort and intelligence required to bring the Path to life, and so shape what it becomes. This Self is not an object, has no essential existence, but is always becoming, always in process.
I am Richard Blumberg, and I approve this message.
Mary Robertson said,
April 24, 2012 @ 10:36 am
I “get it”. I want to hear more! Thanks Richard.
Mike [obo] Olds said,
February 14, 2013 @ 11:05 am
Hello Richard,
I am taking advantage here of my promise to let you know when and if BuddhaDust Revised Edition was put back on line. It is.
at: http://obo.genaud.net
A particular article relevant to this discussion can be found at:
http://obo.genaud.net/dhammatalk/dhammatalk_forum/dhamma_talk/dt_002.not_self.htm
If you will pardon and old man’s directness, you have this on wrong. You have fallen here into a discussion of existence versus non existence and that is not the way to understand the point of the Buddha’s position with regrd to anatta.
The word means ‘not-self’. That is not an implication that there is no self and Gotama makes it very clear that he is not taking the position of the annihilationist in MN 22:
“Although I, monks, am one who speaks thus, who points out thus, there are some recluses and brahmans who misrepresent me untruly, vainly, falsely, not in accordance with fact, saying: ‘The recluse Gotama is a nihilist, he lays down the cutting off, the destruction, the disappearance of the existent entity. But as this, monks, is just what I am not, as this is just what I do not say, therefore these worthy recluses and brahmans misrepresent me . . . formerly I, monks, as well as now, lay down simply anguish [dukkha] and the stopping of anguish.”
The problem, as pointed out in the link above is solved by understanding that the statement: “There is no self” is an opinion. It is of such a nature that only a person who knew all things at all times could know it’s truth or falsity. The statement ‘This is not self’ on the other hand is not an opinion. It is a verifiable observation. Taking a look at a rock a person can say: rise up good rock. They will do this a long time before realizing that if the rock were something that was theirs, or was themself they would be able to command it. That is observing that a thing is not the self. That is the observation to be made with regard to body, perception, sense-experience, own-making, and consciousness. To go further and conclude that since there is no thing other than these things which constitute an existing being that therefore there is no self is to go too far and to fall on the side of the annihilationists.
Best Wishes,
Obo
Richard said,
February 14, 2013 @ 12:10 pm
Obo, it is so fine to hear from you after long silence! I hope and trust that all is well with you.
I agree with all that you’ve said, and I am particularly pleased by your observation of the difference between the statement “There is no self” (opinion), and “This is not self” (verifiable observation). I’m not sure that the thrust of my post was very far off from your analysis of the case, although I certainly would write it differently having read your comment. My major concern in the post was to address the confusion that my students had expressed, and that is a common response to very much of what presents itself as an explanation of “Buddhism”–the confusion between “self” as a useful construct in daily life, and “self” as an entity just on the verge of perception, that feels both real and somehow essential. That is not self. We can all agree on that, and we can follow the Buddha’s exhaustive examination of all of the places where such an essential self might be expected to be found and his discovery that every one of those is not self.
Next time around, I’ll try to make it clearer.
I’m off now to see your revived site. Thank you very much for writing; you have been more of an influence on me than you can know.
With great regard,
Richard
Obo said,
February 15, 2013 @ 7:41 am
Hello Richard,
Well as all too often, I go too far saying you are ‘wrong’. I should better have said the post’s emphasis falls back into concerns about existence and not existence of this ‘self’ whereas registering the idea that ‘there is nothing there that is the self’ when understood as an alternative to holding ‘views’ [ditthi] about existence and non-existence, is liberating.
The First Truth is a ‘ditthi’ or point of view which is above the discussion of existence and enables one to see the problems that arise from holding such views. Additionally, by the idea that ‘This,’ [meaning every existing thing] is ‘dukkha,’ Pain, one is further able to let go of the First Truth itself as in the simile of the raft. This is very important: we must be able to let go of every conceivable thing and that includes the Dhamma.
The importance of understanding all this is not so that one can go around saying one understands the concept of anatta or upekkah [detachment]. It is so that one can work their way through attachment to every existing thing.
This is important when one starts to examine the nature of Nibbana. The result of having become detached from every existing thing. There isn’t much to motivate one to let go in the idea of anatta by itself! You can tell me it’s liberating, but without some further information I can follow the idea out to it’s logical conclusion and see that you are talking about exterminating what I have long been comfortable in calling ‘myself’! Unless you give me some sort of alternative I’m not going to stick with this past the point where it leads to fame, fortune and women.
The basic idea is that there is a consciousness that is not self-created but must nevertheless be awakened by the individual using the process of detachment. This is not a consciousness which already exists and is possessed by everyone and only needs to be discovered [as in the Bodhi Mind]. This consciousness is free from death, ending, and every sort of pain experienced by existing things and it is happy. That’s your goal.
Understanding this requires that one understand that the very idea of existence has been exposed by Gotama as a limited phenomena as in DN 15 §:21:
To this extent only, Ananda,
is there birth,
aging,
death,
disappearance and reappearance —
to this extent is there verbal expression —
to this extent is there getting to the root —
to this extent is there knowing —
to this extent is there scope
for discriminating and drawing distinctions —
to this extent is there this run’n-round
showing up as some sort of being ‘this’
at some place of being ‘at’ —
that is to say:
only just as far as named-form with consciousness.
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/bd/dn/dn.15.olds.bd.htm#21
This is my translation. To establish trust it is linked to the Pali and to other translations.
With this limited idea of ‘existence’ comes the possibility of creating by detachment and letting go a consciousness that is separated from consciousness of existing things. A consciousness that has freedom as it’s object.
Let me re-state that: By detachment and letting go there is created a consciousness of freedom from the consequences of attachment and hanging on. This is consciousness of freedom.
When the Magga has been made one’s lifestyle, this consciousness of freedom becomes ever more broad and eventually the feasibility (and desirability) of abandoning existence in every way becomes clear.
Since this consciousness is consciousness of freedom, and freedom has no limits, this consciousness is limitless, it has no end. Since it is not a consciousness of existing things, but of freedom from existing things, it does not cease to exist.
That is the importance of understanding the idea that: ‘There is no thing there that is the self’. It is another way of stating the First Truth: ‘This is Pain’.
This is a brief outline. If you will pardon another couple of references to my own site, I have put together these ideas in more detail there.:
http://obo.genaud.net/dhammatalk/dhammatalk_forum/dhamma_talk/dt_009.conditioned.vs.own-made.htm
and, relating to this discussion it would also pay to look into the discussion at:
http://obo.genaud.net/dhammatalk/dhammatalk_forum/dhamma_talk/dt_011.pajapatis.problem.htm