Self, No-self, Psychology and Buddhism

Ha! Thanks for that last post Shonin Justin. I just came across the same over at the Tricycle blog. I posted some comments there and then over at my blog, but figured it's good grist for the Progressive Buddhism mill as well.

In the interview, Epstein says, roughly, that the self is real, it's just not really real. Tricycle editors picked up on that in their title:

The self exists, it’s just not as real as you think.

My response(s) follow, slightly edited.

Hmmm… Is that like saying a creator God exists, it’s just not as real as you think? Sounds fishy. Perhaps skillful, but fishy nonetheless.

Sabbe dhamma anatta, all phenomena are not-self. Even nibbana is anatta. And all of samsara is associated with the 5 khandhas, which are the basis for all other dhammas. Where then, lies the self in Buddhism? (hint, next to unicorns and the creator God).

On second thought, yes, the Buddha does make wide use of the term atta as a reflexive pronoun: “nowhere is found one who is dearer than [one]self; in this way for others too the self is dear. Thus one should not harm others who loves [him/her]self.” (Nevajjhagā piyataramattanā kvaci; Evaṃ piyo puthu attā paresaṃ, Tasmā na hiṃse paramattakāmo’’ti.) fom the Mallika sutta in SN I,3 (#8). But this should be read as making an ethical point rather than a metaphysical one: you [think] you have a self, and it is dear to you; this is also true of others, so develop metta/lovingkindness for all (as you do yourself).

In this way the Buddha uses the term in a practical or conventional manner. When speaking of the true nature of things, though, the above quoted sabbe dhamma anatta, along with anatta as one of the “Marks of Existence” should suggest clearly his teaching of no-self. This is as much of a categorical denial as I can think of. He doesn’t deny the existence of the self to the wanderer Vacchagotta precisely because FOR HIM (this confused Brahmin) it would lead to a belief in annihilationism. So in that instance we have the Buddha’s silence. (SN 44:10)

As for the necessary fiction of self; yes it probably is needed at some level, but at the point of awakening we are said to finally(!) let go of the “asmi mana” the conceit or mania of I AM. I suppose as long as we have the conceit of self, it’s useful to act accordingly :)

I'm curious about the apparent streak of neo-Puggalavadins or Attavadins (those who teach that there is a person, or there is a self) in contemporary Buddhist circles. I suppose it has to do with our cultural fascination with the self: liberating it, actualizing it, helping it. If you're trying to gain self-liberation, self-actualization, or self-help you're probably off on a wild-goose chase. Much like trying to have a conversation with an omniscient, benevolent, creator God.

Check out the Sabbasava sutta. There the Buddha lists 16 unwise reflections:

1. What am I?
2. How am I?
3. Am I?
4. Am I not?
5. Did I exist in the past?
6. Did I not exist in the past?
7. What was I in the past?
8. How was I in the past?
9. Having been what, did I become what in the past?
10. Shall I exist in future?
11. Shall I not exist in future?
12. What shall I be in future?
13. How shall I be in future?
14. Having been what, shall I become what in future?
15. Whence came this person?
16. Whither will he go?

Now, as I mentioned in my first response above, any questioning into the self is thus pretty fishy. BUT, it could perhaps be skillful for some people. Just as in the Tevijja Sutta, where the Buddha tells young Brahmins that he'll teach them "the way to union with Brahma" and in fact teaches them ethics and meditation toward awakening, we perhaps could tell people we'll help them "discover their true self" only to lead them, through ethics and meditation, to the understanding of no-self. I'll leave you with one last snippit from the Pali sources (many thanks to Thanisarro Bhikkhu for compiling some Pali sources on Anatta):

“Monks, where there is a self, would there be (the thought), ‘belonging to
my self’?”
“Yes, lord.”
“Or, monks, where there is what belongs to self, would there be (the thought),
‘my self’?”
“Yes, lord.”
“Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth
or reality, then the view-position—‘This cosmos is the self. After death this I will
be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for
an eternity’—Isn’t it utterly & completely a fool’s teaching?” — MN 22

To say that this is a denial of only a certain kind of self seems to me to miss the point. It's like, to reiterate the above, saying that the Buddha only denied a certain kind of creator God, and thus perhaps there is one after all for Buddhists. Any view of self, it seems, is going to spiral into wasted time and effort trying to understand, fix, help, whatever, it (unless, again, guided by a wise teacher toward the understanding that there is no self). Similarly, views of God can be played with (as in the Tevijja sutta) by the wise, in order to bring others to an understanding of ethics, meditation, and wisdom (aka the Buddha's 3-fold path).

But in the hands of the unwise, people like me, speculation on the self or God is just likely to waste time.. how many gods can dance on the head of a pin? Oh, I'm sorry, that was angels. I'll have to speculate on that in a future post.

The Birth of Death

Death. For many it is a topic we are but all too familiar with, and the word itself peels back the unhealed wounds of the past, of loved ones we have lost and the ordeals that surrounded it. For others, it is more of a place only reached in passing thought, for which our end and the end of the ones we love shall only come in some remote time in the extreme future. It is a difficult thing to discuss, and understandably so, as the emotions of fear, denial and terror from the loss of self can leech out like a river that has over flowed its banks. However, death is the ultimate expression of anicca or impermanence and I think it is quite important for us to understand death, accept it for what it is and pass on across to the other side of loss and sorrow before that dramatic moment we all must face comes.

Anthropologists often say, if you really want to learn about a foreign culture examine how they treat there dead. For us, here in the West, our rituals are no less odd or queer than many other cultures that we may define as morbid or bizarre. We place such a high value on the idea of self and it is so clearly expressed in the entire process we put bodies through to prepare them for burial. Long plastic tubes are inserted into the large arteries and the blood is drained into some hole in the floor, then the body is thoroughly scrubbed and washed and the physical marks of death are then erased or hidden away as best as possible. Next, we fill the corpse with formaldehyde or some other embalming fluid to hinder the natural process of decomposition. For many, they will be viewed before burial, so a small team of people apply make-up, cut, comb and style the hair and fit the deceased in there Sunday best to make the appearance of who they were before death. It is not said often, but often thought how plastic or artificial the entire process is, from the McDrive Through Funeral Homes to the very unreal appearance and feel of the body itself.

The headstones we use come in various sizes and shapes, built from rock and mark dates of birth and death, full names and sometimes a religious inscription. It is good we cherish life so much as to place so much stock into death, but I am afraid it is this illusion of self that is the cause of so much of the hurt and pain death brings. Like a dark shadow that follows us around the city at night, so death waits to meet us around any corner, unpronounced and unstoppable in its entrance in to our lives. I fear because of this I think a lot of us protect ourselves by not getting involved in life, not getting in close relationships with others because we all know at the end it must conclude. Beneath all our words, our deeds, our actions; after all our moments have past, and our lives are spent like a candle with no more wax, we all, unremarkably and inevitably must wither and burn no more.

Perhaps death may not be what we really think it is; maybe it is neither nihilistic (non-existence) nor materialistic (unchanging eternal soul) but ultimately something that resides somewhere in-between. This belief in creation and destruction, this albatross of coming into this world and hence leaving this world weights down the heart and wears down the mind. When we can accept who we think we are, is only thoughts and an ever changing body, we can see that there maybe something deeper, something, some would say, that is always there and always switched on, something that is fully engaged and engrossed in every scene and every character.

Then again, perhaps I am wrong and maybe definitions don't or can't apply here.

Death, as we know it, is only the conclusion to the beautiful gift of this life, whose pulse and breath, whose wonder and amazement can only be fully realized because of this temporary nature. The Buddha urged that we overcome this desire of self, this illusion of time and creation and to fully understand the true nature of who we are, where we come from and where we are going. I think we should make some effort in this life to try and pry off this grotesque mask of death and see the emptiness from where it comes.

A raindrop does not begin in the sky and does not end in the ocean.