|
The
Buddha’s silence on atta = SELF
On another occasion the wanderer Vacchagotta went
to the Blessed and exchanged greetings
with him. Then he asked: “How is it,
Master
Gotama, does SELF exist?” When this was said, the Blessed was silent. “How is it, then, Master Gotama, does SELF not exist?” And for a
second time the Blessed One was silent. Then the wanderer
Vacchagotta got up from his seat and went away. Now after
he had gone the venerable Ananda asked the Blessed One: “Lord, how is it that when the Blessed One was
questioned he did not answer?” “If, when I was asked ‘Does SELF
exist?’ I had answered ‘SELF
exists,’ that would have been the belief of those who hold the theory of
eternalism. And if, when I was asked ‘Does SELF not exist?’ I had answered ‘SELF
does not exist,’ that would have been the belief of those who hold the
theory of annihilationism. Again, if, when he asked ‘Does SELF
exist?’ I had answered ‘SELF
exists’, would that have been in conformity with my knowledge that all things
are not-SELF? And if, when asked ‘Does SELF not
exist?’ I had answered ‘SELF does
not exist,’
then confused as he already is, Ananda, the wanderer Vacchagotta would have become still more confused,
assuming ‘Surely then I had a SELF
before and now have none’.” S 44:10 Note
how you, the reader or hearer, is being set up. Vacchagotta should have
first asked: “Master Gotama, what do you mean when you use the word SELF ?” (In short, “Define your
term of reference (hence premise)!”) Since the Buddha did not
once during his 40+ years of teaching define the meaning of the word atta
(i.e. SELF), the above discussion is
spurious, i.e. Buddhist ‘leading’ rhetoric. The
Buddha further on SELF See if you can uncover the flaky
reasoning derived from an assumptions
that are ‘un-apprehendable as true’ “Bhikkhus, the possession that
one might possess that were permanent, everlasting* ….do you see such a
possession?” “No, Lord.” “The SELF-theory clinging whereby
one might cling that
would never arouse sorrow and ... despair* (i.e.
distress) in him who clung thereby; do you see any such SELF-theory clinging?" "No, Lord.” “The view as support that
one might take as support that would never arouse sorrow and ... despair in
him who took it as support; do you see any such view as support?" “No, Lord” “Bhikkhus, there being SELF, would there be SELF’s property?” “Yes, Lord.” “And there being SELF’s
property, would there be SELF?” “Yes, Lord.” "Bhikkhus, SELF and SELF’s property being
un-apprehendable as true and established, then would not this view ‘This
is the world, this the SELF; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject
to change, I shall endure as long as
eternity’ be the pure perfection of a fool's idea?” “How could it not be, Lord? It
would be the pure perfection of idea.” M.22 *… ‘Permanent, everlasting
and free from sorrow and despair’ (= distress, i.e. dukkha) are assumed by the Buddha to be prime qualities of the SELF. The assumptions are ‘un-apprehendable
as true’. The following clip is of
extreme importance since it provides the bit missing from the notion of sunyá
in the Heart Sutra. “ ‘Empty world, empty world’ is said Lord; in what
way is ‘empty world’ said?” “It is because of what is
empty of SELF and SELF’s property* that ‘empty
world’ is said, Ananda. And what is empty of SELF and SELF’s property? The eye ...
forms ... eye-consciousness … eye‑contact… any feeling ... born of
eye-contact … The ear, etc.... The nose, etc.... The tongue, etc.... The
body, etc.... The mind, etc … any
feeling whether pleasant, painful or neither-painful-nor‑pleasant
born of mind-contact is empty of SELF and SELF’s property.” S. 35 : 85
|