Anatta to Ajativada

[Guest guest]

MillionPaths , " Era " <mi_nok> wrote:

Anatta

 

The Concept of No-Self in Buddhism

 

One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter

when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on Anatta, often

translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two

reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well

with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of Karma and

Rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of Karma

and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with the predominate

Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an

eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self,

what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer

these questions, but if you look at the Pali Canon -- the earliest

extant record of the Buddha's teachings -- you won't find them

addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked

point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer.

When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a

self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong

view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible (Samyutta

Nikaya XLIV.10). Thus the question should be put aside. To

understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning

of Anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions

should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers. The

Buddha divided all questions into four classes: Those that deserve a

categorical (straight yes or no) answer. Those that deserve an

analytical answer, defining and qualifying the terms of the

question.

 

Those that deserve a counter-question, putting the ball back in the

questioner's court.

Those that deserve to be put aside.

The last class of question consists of those that don't lead to the

end of suffering and stress. The first duty of a teacher, when asked

a question, is to figure out which class the question belongs to,

and then to respond in the appropriate way. You don't, for example,

say yes or no to a question that should be put aside. If you are the

person asking the question and you get an answer, you should then

determine how far the answer should be interpreted. The Buddha said

that there are two types of people who misrepresent him:

 

Those who draw inferences from statements that shouldn't have

inferences drawn from them.

 

Those who don't draw inferences from those that should. These are

the basic ground rules for interpreting the Buddha's teachings, but

if we look at the way most writers treat the Anatta doctrine, we

find these ground rules ignored. Some writers try to qualify the no-

self interpretation by saying that the Buddha denied the existence

of an eternal self or a separate self, but this is to give an

analytical answer to a question that the Buddha showed should be put

aside. Others try to draw inferences from the few statements in the

discourse that seem to imply that there is no self, but it seems

safe to assume that if one forces those statements to give an answer

to a question that should be put aside, one is drawing inferences

where they shouldn't be drawn.

 

So, instead of answering " no " to the question of whether or not

there is a self -- interconnected or separate, eternal or not -- the

Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No

matter how you define the line between " self " and " other, " the

notion of self involves an element of self-identification and

clinging, and thus suffering and stress. This holds as much for an

interconnected self, which recognizes no " other, " as it does for a

separate self. If one identifies with all of nature, one is pained

by every felled tree. It also holds for an entirely " other "

universe, in which the sense of alienation and futility would become

so debilitating as to make the quest for happiness -- one's own or

that of others -- impossible. For these reasons, the Buddha advised

paying no attention to such questions as " Do I exist? " or " Don't I

exist? " for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and

stress.

 

To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of " self " and " other, "

he offered an alternative way of dividing up experience: the four

Noble Truths of stress, its cause, its cessation, and the path to

its cessation.

 

Rather than viewing these truths as pertaining to SELF or OTHER, he

said, one should recognize them simply for what they are, in and of

themselves, as they are directly experienced, and then perform the

duty appropriate to each.

Stress should be comprehended, its cause abandoned, its cessation

realized, and the path to its cessation developed. These duties form

the context in which the Anatta doctrine is best understood.

If you develop the path of virtue, concentration, and discernment to

a state of calm well-being and use that calm state to look at

experience in terms of the Noble Truths, the questions that occur to

the mind are not " Is there a self? What is my self? " but rather " Am

I suffering stress because I'm holding onto this particular

phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, or mine? If it's stressful but

not really me or mine, why hold on? " These last questions merit

straightforward answers, as they then help you to comprehend stress

and to chip away at the attachment and clinging -- the residual

sense of self-identification -- that cause it, until ultimately all

traces of self-identification are gone and all that's left is

limitless freedom.

 

In this sense, the Anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but

a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its

cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point,

questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's

the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any

concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?

 

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Copyright =A9 1996 Thanissaro Bhikkhu

 

~~~~~~~~

 

Era

 

Namaste----Hence the need for a concept of Ajativada.....ONS..Tony.