According to scripture passed down from the Buddha, the self does not exist. This is a key feature of Buddhism, which acts to set it apart from many other religions and philosophies. The Buddha sought to promote this insightfulness by encouraging people to explore their own minds and existence through the process of self-reflection. On the whole, humans have mainly been prone to developing the perception that their existence is centred on the self. Thus the Buddha, in his teachings, was attempting to radically alter our views of the truth behind existence. The concept of the self, referred to as ātman in most forms of Buddhism, will be the key theme of this essay, as it explores various interpretations of the Buddha’s teachings, and sets them in contrast with the important doctrine of anātman, or ‘no-self’. This essay will begin by discussing three universal truths of existence as laid out by the Buddha, before moving on to look at the five aggregates, or skandhas, that make up the perception of the self, and subsequently how they ultimately exemplify the truth of non-self. Finally, we shall touch upon the conventional role of the perceived self in society, before concluding with a discussion of the overall positivity intended by the Buddha’s anātman doctrine.
To interpret Buddhist scripture is to gain an understanding of the plethora of nouns given in the liturgical Buddhist Pali language which denote abstract concepts. For this, one must either understand Pali, or rely upon the interpretations of Buddhist scholars, a process which unsurprisingly leads to debate over precise translations of key words. Nonetheless, it can be possible for a researcher to adequately understand key words and concepts by comparing the translations of numerous scholars and recognising areas of general agreement between them. The translations used in this essay represent a collaboration of the views of the listed authors, and will be presented in reference to various passages of Buddhist scripture in which ātman and anātman are discussed. Before beginning, these two key terms are here briefly clarified:
Ātman is usually interpreted as the ‘self’, a substantial, independent entity existing apart from the phenomenon of personhood. It is the source of the continuity and an essential identity of individual beings.[1] Or to put it in the words of Walpola Rahula: an unchanging substance behind the changing phenomenal world.[2]
Anātman means ‘devoid of self’. It signifies that everything is insubstantial, impermanent, and without any underlying reality, continuity or independence.[3]
Apart from these two key concepts, the first and arguably most important Buddhist term to understand is Dhamma, meaning the teaching of the Buddha, or Truth, or Phenomena.[4] It applies to all things and states, conditioned or unconditioned, and can be found in numerous key passages of scripture. It is a term directly quoted from the Buddha, and it can take on a number of translations depending on the context. In the Dhammapada, a work of scripture ascribed to the Buddha himself, verses 277-279 state three universal truths according to Buddhism.[5] The first two use the term Samkhārā, which denotes mental constituents or mental formations, or things which are conditioned, while the final uses dhamma:
i. all samskhāra are impermanent
ii. all samskhāra are suffering
iii. all dhammas are without self (anātman)[6]
Here it is stated that all conditioned things are impermanent and suffering, but it is all things and states that are without self. So, ultimately this appears to make it clear that there is no such thing that possesses a self. However, despite this apparent clarity in the Buddha’s teaching, there are various streams within Buddhism in which a self is believed to exist. According to the Mahāyāna Buddhists, a stream of Buddhism that developed relatively later than original orthodox Theravāda Buddhism, there exists two forms of truth; Conventional Truth, which states that things exist, and Ultimate Truth, which states that there is emptiness.[7] So, while it may be an ultimate truth that all things and states are without self, the concept of a conventional truth allows for the existence of a self. A third stream of Buddhism, known as Mādhyanika, or the ‘middle way’, perceives of these two truths as being complementary.[8] This complementarity shall be explored in a later passage, yet for now this essay will move on to introduce the Buddhist concept of the perceived self.
In Buddhism the formation of the perceived self is deconstructed into five aggregates that leave no remainder. The aggregates are known as the Skandhas. They are:
Rūpa: form, material, matter
Vedanā: feeling, sensation
Samjñā: perception, conception
Samskāra: mental formations/ constituents/ disposition
Vijñana: consciousness[9]
It is understood that thinking and feeling result in experiences and reactions, which in turn result in particular “traits, tendencies and habits” that form a “complex pattern of dispositions”, which we call ‘characteristics’ or ‘character’.[10] The structure of these characteristics is what defines individual people and is the idea behind the skandha of samskāra, often translated as ‘mental disposition’. Yet, despite the combination of these aggregates forming the concept of personhood in conventional terms, the Buddha claimed that none of the individual skandha are in fact ātman, and therefore together they do not form ātman.[11] These claims, found in the doctrine of anātman, show a practical and empirical approach from the Buddha, which can be seen to be more likened to psychology than theology. One can even find a strong compatibility with modern day neurology, in which the concept known as the self is seen as the formation of a group of neurological structures that is without a single locatable source.[12]
An overarching message found in the Buddha’s doctrine of anātman sought to refocus humanity’s view away from the concept of the self. This was compatible with the traditional mainstream Indian society during the life of the Buddha, where focus on the individual was an exception to normal behaviour.[13] However, Buddhism did also position itself away from Indian society in another crucial area. Contrary to two of the major contemporary Indian religions, Brahmanism and Jainism, Buddhism did not proclaim the existence of an eternal soul within each person.[14] By making no reference whatsoever to an existing eternal soul, the Buddha was deliberately setting his teaching apart from these orthodox ideas.
In light of this profound diversion to mainstream belief it is not surprising that a backlash of thought against the doctrine of anātman occurred within Buddhism roughly 200 years after the Buddha’s death.[15] A group of followers, known as the Pudgelavādins (Personalists), began asserting that a self or person, known as pudgala existed. Pudgala was stated as being neither identical nor different from the skandhas.[16] The Pudgelavādins likened the relationship between the pudgala and the skandhas to that between fire and fuel; neither identical nor different.[17] They claimed that if the pudgala were different to the skandhas, then it would be eternal and unconditional.[18] Whereas, if it were the same, pudgala would be perishable. Either view would undoubtedly have been a heretical act. So, in choosing this position, the Pudgelavādins were able to mark out a middle way in Buddhist belief. Subsequently, it is many of these beliefs that have been carried on in the stream of Mādhyanika Buddhism.[19]
Despite the truth laid out by the Buddha in the doctrine of anātman, society still finds it useful to have a concept of an existing self for conventional purposes. In society the existence of a self is required to enable individuals to be held accountable for their actions. The self, although it may be a mere juridical fiction, forms this crucial seat of ethical responsibility, and is thus highly necessary for all functioning societies.[20] This conventional truth is undoubtedly a more comprehensible representation of reality for the majority of people than the Buddha’s ultimate truth of emptiness and no-self. Thus it has been found that the majority of mainstream Buddhists accept the existence of the self.[21] This may seem like a break in the strict following of the Buddha’s teaching, yet it appears that the comprehension of anātman has been an overly difficult task for Buddhist followers. The Buddha’s teachings therefore appear to have been adapted to fit a more mainstream following.
According to Buddhist scholar Walpola Rahula, when considering anātman it is important not to hold any opinions or views, but to try to see things as objectively as possible.[22] Thus, we should be capable of understanding that what we call the self is merely a combination of physical and mental aggregates, the skandhas, which work together interdependently, abiding “to the law of cause and effect”, and which are impermanent, changing and finite.[23] The difficulty of this task is highlighted in the writing of Jacques Monod, who states that it is not uncommon for humans to think of themselves as necessary beings that have been “destined from all eternity”.[24] In fact, he believes that nearly all religions and philosophies bear witness to mankind’s unwavering struggle to deny its own contingency.[25] Thus, the controversy of the Buddha’s diversion from orthodox Indian views, is in fact a diversion from the orthodox views of nearly all of humanity.
By the modern, mainstream view of Buddhism, this traditional Buddhist teaching of anātman can still appear paradoxical. In the West especially, Buddhism is more than often seen as a religion of individual salvation, providing a means of developing a person’s individual potential.[26] The doctrine of anātman, and the ultimate truth of emptiness appear to have been discarded in Buddhism’s migration to the West, whilst the more comprehensible and conventional truth of an existing self has claimed the focal point in the mainstream psyche. This is not too surprising when we look at the Buddha’s own words used to desribe the anātman doctrine:
“I have realised this Truth which is deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand…comprehensible only by the wise…Men who, overpowered by passions and surrounded by a mass of darkness, cannot see this Truth, which is against the current, which is lofty, deep, subtle and hard to comprehend”[27]
The doctrine of anātman can be misread as a negative doctrine due to its close resemblance to philosophical nihilism. However, it is stated that the Buddhas intended it purely for positive purposes, and that it was mainly intended as a teaching against man’s selfish desires.[28] Furthermore, we can see that anātman lies within a positive system of salvation, in which it adds a scepticism about theories which affirm the eternality of a soul. It denies any cosmology that asserts that the soul has an eternal and necessary relationship to some external force or sacred being(s), such as the gods.[29] This denial of a finite self is claimed to have brought a substantial psychological advantage to the followers of Buddhism, as it offers an essential freedom and transcendence that cannot easily be found in the teachings of others.[30]
Yet, although it is possible to view the anātta doctrine in this positive light, the difficulty of its comprehension, and thus its misunderstanding leads to its rejection in mainstream society. There are serious concerns for the impact anātman would have for the justification of human relationships. For if we are to accept that the self is an illusion, then how can it be possible for any form of substantial relationship to exist between humans?[31] We would not be able to justify normative standards without an ontological establishment of their worth.[32] For, as stated by Willard L Johnson, if the worldly and the spiritual realms are mutually exclusive, then socially and morally irreverent things and activities have “no intrinsic value”.[33]
The counterviews within Buddhism, which have emerged from the differing interpretations of the Buddha’s teachings, lay claim to many versions of the truth behind the existence of the self and its role in obtaining awakening. Whilst all views within Buddhism could not be discussed in this short paper, it is important to consider that they have all diverged from a single teacher. To discuss the Buddhist theory of the self as an overarching theory that resonates throughout all streams of Buddhism would be difficult. Of course there are elements of the Buddha’s original teachings within each stream, yet over the course of time and due to the influence of prominent thinkers in particular Buddhist fields, there have emerged quite separate views as to the truth of the self. This essay has attempted to assess the basics of the field by approaching the fundamentals of the theory or ātman and anātman as laid down by the Buddha, whilst briefly exploring the most significant divergence.
In conclusion, it can be seen that the Buddha’s view of the self, as proclaimed in the anātman doctrine, is aligned with mainstream Western philosophical views toward the origin of the human will. In particular that of determinism, which proclaims that free will is merely a conditioned thing. Although, despite the nihilistic claims posed by Westerners, the Buddha’s doctrine of anātman was not intended to promote an existence without meaning. The doctrine of anātman, as stated previously, was aimed at setting humans free from their desires. Thus, if the Buddha’s teachings upon this complex subject are rejected due to the mainstream fears held about the consequences of there being no self in society, then it could prove to be a setback for the possibility of a heightened existential peace and tranquillity that humanity seeks, and which was the Buddha’s ultimate offering.
--------------------------------------------
My interest in Buddhism sprouted from my visit to the beautiful country of Laos. If you'd like to visit Laos, and learn more about Buddhist philosophy in action, check out the great Laos Tours available from trip.me
.png)
--------------------------------------------
My interest in Buddhism sprouted from my visit to the beautiful country of Laos. If you'd like to visit Laos, and learn more about Buddhist philosophy in action, check out the great Laos Tours available from trip.me
The Buddhist Religion: A Historical Introduction, Second Edition
Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California 1982
[3] Op Cit 1, p 214
[4] Ibid p 215
[5] Op Cit 2, p 57
[6] Ibid p 57
[8] Ibid p 52
[10] Ibid p 57
[11] Op Cit 1, p68
[12] Op Cit 7, p 50
[13] Ibid p 50
[14] Op Cit 9, p 56
[15] Op Cit 1, p 68
[16] Ibid p 68
[17] Ibid p 68
[18] Ibid p 68
[19] Ibid p 69
[20] Op Cit 7, p 51
[21] Ibid p 51
[22] Op Cit 2, p 66
[23] Ibid p 66
Chance and Necessity: an essay on the natural philosophy of modern biology
Translated by Austryn Wainhouse
Knopf, New York 1971
P 28
[25] Ibid p 28
[26] Op Cit 7, 49
[27] Op Cit 2, p 52
[28] Ibid p 52
[29] Pardue, Peter A.
Buddhism: A historical introduction to Buddhist values and the social and political forms they have assumed in Asia
The Macmillan Company, New York 1968
P 11
[30] Ibid p 11
[31] Ibid p 15
[32] Ibid p 15
[33] Op Cit 1, p 69
