Non Self
❖ “Buddhism specifies that there is no self at all, no
permanent center in anything, nothing that does not change. But isn’t the
element of consciousness, which is found in all living things, that
unchangeable center? And though it may not be called the self, as ego is self,
it is in its purified form that found in Nibbāna, the essential spirit of all
living things. So while we do not contain self, while the self is illusion,
spirit is not. We contain spirit, spirit is real.” ❖
~ Response by Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu ~
This is a rather troublesome problem, because we run into
the great difficulties of language. The meanings of words are very ambiguous,
so this can be quite troublesome. When we use the word ‘self’ it is something
that does not exist in nature. Self (attā) is something that cannot be found in
nature. So it might be better to speak about the word ‘soul.’ Soul is something
found in living things. Different meanings are given to the word ‘soul.’ Some
people treat it as if it were some eternal unchanging substance. But our
understanding of the word ‘soul’ is just that it’s the natural element of
consciousness, what in Buddhism is called viññāṇa-dhātu that exists in all
living things. This element of consciousness is just something natural,
existing on the mental or spiritual level of living beings. It is natural, it
exists, and there’s no problem regarding this element of consciousness, at
least at the start.
But the problem is this element of consciousness – whatever
you call it, whether you call it ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ or whatever – it is very
easily attached to as being self. The problem arises when we take the element
of consciousness to be self or attā, so we need to understand what is meant by
the word ‘self’ or ‘attā.’
The word ‘soul’ in itself is no problem, but when we cling
to the soul as being self, that is the problem. Soul is just mind, it’s just
the mental side or level of existence. It just refers to the mentality within
life. In the Pāli language we just call it ‘life’ or the ‘jīvitindriya’ (the
faculty of life), or the quality of life that exists within the mind. That’s
all that’s that meant to us by soul. But as soon as we cling to that soul as
being self, as being attā, then there arises the problem.
The problem is what does the word ‘self,’ or ‘attā,’ mean?
So far nobody has been able to explain this word satisfactorily. People have
some idea about what self is, and then explain it accordingly, but all they’re
doing is talking about self or explaining self according to their own personal
opinions or views. No one has been able to explain self in a universally
acceptable way. Nobody is able to show what the self is. All we have are lots
of opinions and beliefs about it. So we have the problem of what the word
‘self’ means, and nobody can explain it because it doesn’t really exist. Some
people see something and then explain that that is the self, that is the true
self, but Buddhism will not accept that anything is self. The thing might be
there, but Buddhism can’t insist that it is the self. Most religions have
chosen something and claimed that that is the real self, that is the true self,
and then they explain according to that particular view, opinion, or dogma. But
Buddhism, having looked at all those things, can’t see that any of them are really
a self. Buddhism therefore teaches that all those things are not-self, that
those things that different groups take to be self are in fact not-self.
You shouldn’t call them a self, you shouldn’t take them to
be a self. In spite of the fact that many groups in the world are claiming that
there is some kind of self and propagating that kind of understanding, and in
spite of the fact that the vast majority people feel they have a self, Buddhism
denies that there is anything that really is a self, anything that ought to be
called a self. Buddhism teaches, “Don’t bother taking anything to be a self,
don’t bother calling anything a self.” So there’s this problem about what the
word ‘self’ means. People are explaining it according to personal views, but nobody
can prove that their view is correct. If somebody is able to explain the word
‘self’ in a satisfactory way, then maybe this problem will disappear. But so
far they can only satisfy themselves, they can’t satisfy others.
Let’s look at the meaning of the word attā, which is the
Pāli form, or ātman, which is the Sanskrit form. It seems that the original
meaning of the word attā means ‘to be’ or ‘to exist.’ It means that essence or
substance, that thing that really is, that truly exists. But even this is uncertain.
Some language experts argue that the original meaning or the root of attā is
assa, and that the meaning of assa is ‘to eat.’ Some people say the meaning of
assa is ‘to be,’ ‘to exist,’ but some say it means ‘to eat.’ Then they explain
that attā means ‘that which eats everything else,’ and then that just confuses
the whole issue and makes a mess out of it. But others explain that attā means
‘that which is’ or ‘that which exists.’ The way that attā is usually applied in
common understanding is because before Buddhism existed, all the thinkers and
teachers in India said that there was some kind of attā, some kind of self. And
it was described in various ways, such as that essence or substance which knows
things through the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind. The spirit or
whatever you want to call it that experiences the world through the senses,
that is sometimes called the attā. Or other times the attā is the thing that
thinks, or the thing that knows, or the thing that experiences. That substance
that experiences or thinks is often explained to be the attā. Buddhism can’t
accept that. Buddhism recognizes that there are things that can see, hear,
smell, taste, touch, or things that know through the senses, and there are the
things that think. But Buddhism can’t recognize that any of these things are
self, because the idea of self is that there’s something that truly exists,
that doesn’t change. And to think that that thing which knows through the
senses doesn’t change, that has no meaning in Buddhism. Because if one observes
the knowing through the senses, you’ll see that it keeps changing. There’s not
some unchanging knower or experiencer.
Or take some Western thinkers like Descartes, who said:
“Cogito, ergo sum.” (I think, therefore I am.) Here Descartes has attached to
the thing which thinks, whatever it is that thinks. He thinks that that is the
self, that which truly exists. But Buddhism studies the thinking and sees that,
‘Oh it can think, there are things that think without requiring any self.’ So
there are those who claim that whatever it is that thinks or knows, that is the
self. But Buddhism observes that all these things which know, think, or
whatever – whatever it is that does things – is changing, it isn’t some
unchanging substance or essence. And so this problem goes on and on. There are
all the different explanations of self, but nobody can agree on them. Even the
different religions – or even in each religion – give different understandings.
Buddhism doesn’t accept any of those explanations of self, that those things
really exist or truly exist. So this question of self is a very tangled one,
and it’s an unending question. As long as people are attaching to self, they’ll
keep formulating ideas and theories about the self, and this will go on
endlessly. But understand that real Buddhists don’t find a self anywhere. They
see the things that think and feel and experience, but those things are
changing all the time, and can’t properly be called a self.
To understand these different perspectives on self, let’s
take a look at the final goal. The final goal for those who have self, who hold
or believe that there is self, is for this little self to merge with the big
self or the great self, the eternal self, such as in the Hindu teachings. Or take
Christianity where there’s the belief in some little individual self, and the
goal is to co-exist with God in eternity, to exist in eternity. So these are
conceptions of some self which will enter eternity, some idea of an eternal
self. The other way of looking at this, the Buddhist perspective, is that to
begin with there isn’t anything which is self. There never was anything that
rightly could be called a ‘self.’ In Buddhism the final goal is eternal
voidness, to realize and dwell in the eternal voidness, the voidness that is
totally free and void of self and anything having to do with self. So one
viewpoint is for this self to co-exist as an eternal self with the great self,
or with God or whatever. The other perspective is that there never was a self,
there never will be, and the final goal is to realize and live in that eternal
voidness. So the problem for everyone is, ‘what to do?’ There are these two
perspectives on self – people in this world can be divided into two camps.
There are the groups that believe there is some self, and then there are those
who don’t see a self anywhere. And so what are we going to do about this
business of self?
Let’s look at the final goal or eternity as it exists right
now. Let’s take a look at the eternity of eternity, the eternity that we can
find right here and now, not the eternity of thoughts and beliefs. If right now
the mind is void – is free of all thoughts of me and mine, there’s no thinking,
no awareness, no sense or feeling of me or mine, of self, in the mind – then
the mind in that moment dwells in eternity. The mind realizes that eternity as
soon as it is void of self. But once the mind starts to think in terms of self
again, once it starts to hold onto the sense of self, or the concepts of self,
then that eternity disappears. This is something immediate, direct, and
experienceable by everyone here. When the mind is void of self, eternity
appears. When the mind is no longer void, when the mind is caught on self,
centered on self, then eternity disappears. In fact that eternity is here, it’s
always waiting, but we can only realize it, experience it, or see it for
ourselves when the mind is free of self, is void of self, of me and mine. To
get this self into eternity doesn’t seem to fit with experience or with reality.
It seems much easier to just leave the self alone, and then eternity is right
there. All you have to do is drop the self. So what you’re going to do with
this problem of self, or how you’re going to get the self into eternity, is a
difficult question.
Buddhists don’t feel a need to believe anyone else.
Buddhists don’t accept things on someone else’s authority; they investigate
things for themselves and only accept what fits with their own spiritual
experience. Buddhists observe in their own experience that when the mind is
void of self – when there are no thoughts or feelings of self in the mind –
then everything is light, the mind is free. There’s wellbeing and peace,
there’s no problems, there’s nothing that could be called dukkha, could be called
pain, or painful, or unpleasant, or suffering. But then when the mind isn’t
void, as soon as there are thoughts of self, as soon as the mind holds onto
something as being me, as being self, as ‘this is what I am,’ immediately the
mind becomes heavy, tight. It’s no longer free, open, vast, and luminous; it
becomes small and heavy. The mind that holds to something as self is burdened.
The mind that is void of self is free. Examining things in this way that when
the mind is void of self, there’s no dukkha, but when the mind is holding to
something as being self, that there is dukkha. In order to be free of dukkha,
which is the goal of all religions – all religions are seeking the end of
suffering – Buddhists state, “Well the best way, the easiest way to get free of
suffering, is just to be free of self.” Having observed how when the mind is
void of self, there is no dukkha, no pain, nothing unsatisfying, then they see
that voidness of self is the way to deal with the problem of dukkha. The Hindus
see it differently. Their approach to suffering is to take the self, to merge
with the eternal self, or the paramātman, which means ‘supreme self.’ And the
Christians, their approach is for the self to do whatever is necessary to go
live in the Kingdom of God. But the Buddhists see that the best approach is to
just be void of self. All of you are free to examine things for yourself, and
to choose as you see fit. So these are your choices: a self that is going into
eternity, or eternal voidness of self. It’s up to you which you choose.
By just examining your own experience carefully, through
practicing mindfulness, you can see for yourself that when the mind is void of
‘I’ and ‘mine,’ void of self, that the mind is free, is light, is cool, it has
no problems. But that as soon as the mind is full of self, that things become
hot, intense, that things are heavy, that there is dukkha. This is something
that you can see for yourself, and then draw your own conclusions. If we see
this, then we can understand how they explain that attā means ‘the eater’, the
one that eats. Because you can see how attā eats the heart of the one who has
attā. Whenever there is attā or self in the mind, in the heart, then that self
eats the heart, it eats it, it creates dukkha, or suffering. So we can see some
meaning in this word, this explanation that attā is the one that eats, or the
eater. Buddhists then see that it’s best to be free or void of self. If this
self just eats the heart, just creates dukkha, it’s better to be totally void,
to be free of it.
Those that believe in self, who say there’s a self, they
deal with the problem a little bit differently. But they’ve got their way of
dealing with this problem. They distinguish between defiled self and undefiled
or pure self. And so their approach is to destroy or get rid of all the defiled
kinds of self, or the sinful self. And when all that defiled self is gone, then
one realizes the pure self, the undefiled self. So they see things in terms of
false self, which they sometimes call ‘ego,’ and true self, which is sometimes
called the ‘eternal soul,’ and that one gets rid of all the false self, and
then there is the true self to dwell in eternity. So that’s the approach of
those who have a self. But as soon as you call it ‘self,’ Buddhism isn’t interested.
Buddhism doesn’t want to have anything to do with anything called ‘self,’
because self in any form, whether you call it true or false, is seen in
Buddhism as being an illusion. It’s just something that deludes us and tricks
us. So Buddhism isn’t interested in anything that’s called ‘self.’ Instead
Buddhism is interested in voidness of self, or voidness from self.
So in summary, attā or self comes from avijjā, from
ignorance, from not knowing or from wrong knowing. When there is no avijjā,
none of this ignorance, then there is no self, but as soon as there is
ignorance then there is self, one takes something to be self, one sees
everything in terms of self. So the Buddhist understanding is that self is the
result of ignorance, and that when there is no ignorance, there is no self. If
one can overcome ignorance, if one can see things as they really are, then one
sees that there is nothing anywhere that can be rightly taken to be self.
Nothing can be correctly, truly regarded as self. Self comes from ignorance, by
overcoming ignorance there is no more self.
Now the problem here, another aspect of it we should
consider, is that as soon as we’re born from our mother’s womb we’re ready to
take things as self. We’re born ignorant. That’s not a judgment, it’s just the
way things go. We’re born without wisdom. And so we’re ready from the very
start to take things as self. So right from the very beginning we begin to see
things as self because of this inherent ignorance.
So as soon as we’re born we become stupid. Because of this
ignorance we start acting foolishly. From soon after birth when some sight
strikes the eyes we think ‘I see,’ some sound strikes the ear and we think ‘me
hears,’ some volatile gases enter the nose and we take it to be ‘me smells.’ There
are tastes on the tongue and we think ‘me tastes,’ things touch the body and we
think ‘me touches’ or ‘I am touched,’ and then thoughts, feelings, memories in
the mind, we take it to be ‘me.’ This foolishness starts very early,
practically from the moment of birth where whatever contacts the senses it’s
taken as me that experiences it or knows it.
So we’re tricked or deceived every time there is something
that strikes the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind. We take it all to be
I see, I hear, I smell, and so on. This is the first round of deception. We’re
tricked here, but then we’re tricked again. Whatever it is that made contact,
we’re tricked into thinking that’s positive or negative. And so we’re tricked
again, that the sight, the smell, the sound, the taste, whatever, is positive
or is negative. This self gets strong, this self grows even further. So we’re
deceived twice, and so the self gets very big.
We’re tricked the first time and self arises, so that’s the
first level of stupidity. And then there’s the feelings of positive and
negative, and we’re tricked even more, we become even more stupid, and the self
becomes intense, much bigger, much stronger. This is something that you don’t
need anyone to tell you, you can just see it because this is happening to
everyone here. These two levels of deception are happening right now. Everyone
is sitting here with this self, deceived by this illusion of self and the
illusion of positive and negative.
A very easy example will help to illustrate this, an example
from childhood. A child is careless and walking, bumps into a chair. After
bumping into the chair it hurts, the leg hurts or something, and the feeling
arises, self, myself. And then the child also projects self on the chair. My
self and that self hurt me, and so the child kicks the chair. The first level
of illusion is taking this to be self, the pain in the leg or whatever, to be
self. And then the second level of illusion is to think the chair is the self,
and then one is so stupid one kicks the chair as if that will do any good. This
illustrates very clearly these two levels of the illusion of self.
Sometimes the mother, father, or nurse will come and kick
the chair too, to show sympathy or solidarity with the child. So this just
makes the kid even more stupid, not to mention the adults.
So all this helps to explain this illusion or the illusions
of self. The self is thoroughly stupid, it arises out of an illusion and leads
and grows into bigger illusions. The soul is still dumb but it’s not quite so
stupid. It doesn’t know anything, and it doesn’t go around grabbing things to
be self, but as soon as self arises, things get really messed up and everything
is upside down and thoroughly stupid. If you study this, if you study how the
illusions of self arise and understand it, see it, experience it deeply, then
one will see through the self, and self will no longer exist. One will be free
of self. There won’t be any more self or of self, no me, no mine. And then
there won’t be any more problems or questions about self.
Sometimes we break or destroy our pencil or pen because it
doesn’t respond to our desires. We want it to do something and it doesn’t do
it, so we – aargh – break it or throw it away or smash it. This shows how
stupid we can be, how broad and expansive this stupidity about self can be,
that we take the pen to be a self and try to punish it and get angry at it,
hate it. This is the power of the illusion of self.
Remember the short words, please try to remember the words:
“Wherever there is self, there is a problem. When there is no self whatsoever,
there are no problems, there are no hassles, no troubles, no pain, no dukkha.”
We study Dhamma as the way to be free of pain, to be free of self. We study
Dhamma to be free of this illusion of self, to be void of self, and then there
are no more problems, there aren’t any troubles, nothing is difficult,
everything is free.
If you experience success in practicing mindfulness with
breathing then you won’t have any more problems with self. Practice correctly
until there is deepening insight and experience of aniccatā (impermanence),
dukkhatā (the painfulness of impermanent things), anattatā (not selfhood),
dhammādhiṭṭhatā (the naturalness of things), dhamma-niyāmatā (the lawful, the
natural lawfulness), idappaccayatā (dependence and conditionality), suññatā
(voidness), thāthātā tathatā (thusness), and atammayatā (the mind that is
untouched by anything positive or negative). Then seeing all of these there
will not be any more illusions or problems with self, and then there are no
more problems in life. From all of this information, all of these observations,
you can study the matter for yourself, and then you will know what self is.
(From the retreat “Stopping the Flow of Dependent
Origination,” as translated from the Thai by Santikaro)
- - ❖ - -
Dhamma Questions & Responses sessions were offered by
Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu in 1990-1991 to foreign meditators attending Suan Mokkh
International Dharma Hermitage courses.
- - ❖ - -
To listen to this teaching on Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/buddhadasa/19910710-4-dhamma-questions-responses
For all English retreat talks by Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu:
https://soundcloud.com/buddhadasa/
For more information and free ebooks, visit Suan Mokkh – The
Garden of Liberation:
https://www.suanmokkh.org/
No comments:
Post a Comment