Dear Pradip,
A beautiful analytical blog . And a great discussion with Dwai and Raju closely following your thoughts. You seem to have a central pair of questions.
Did Buddha teach that there is no self?
If he did, how is that to be reconciled with the Buddhist belief in rebirth of 'beings'?
A few reflections are offered, which may not clear the air.
Dhammapada is replete with recommendations of proper living in 'the path' so that beings get chances of better births.
All these would not have been recommended by Gautama, if he felt that a being had no self.
As in other philosophies/religions, the gap between the life time of the Buddha and the recording of his preachings a few centuries later, would have made a lot of difference.
I respect the Gautama Buddha for his clear exposition of how humans should conduct themselves during their lifespan. He is not at all vague about Dhamma and kamma. The subsequent Buddhist scriptures have added a lot of wonderful material, some of which may run contrary to some of his views.
Warm regards. Partha.

Dear Pradipda and others,

I was reading Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's quotes and here are some interesting ones I thought I'd share. What do you have to say about this?
http://www.maharajnisargadatta...dicine.php

There is that nine-month period in the womb. So what is the content of the womb? It is that knowledge ‘I am’ in dormant condition. This is being developed slowly, so within the birth principle everything is contained. That which is called birth, the birth principle is ‘turiya’; the experience that you exist itself is ‘turiya’. ‘Turiya’ means where the consciousness is. One who knows ‘turiya’ is ‘turiyatita’. That is my state. ‘Turiya’ is within the consciousness, which is the product of the five elements. And one who transcends that, who knows the ‘turiya’, is ‘turiyatita’. In order to stabilize in ‘turiya’, you must know the birth principle. ‘Turiya’ is always described as the witness state that see through waking, dreaming and sleeping. And ‘turiyatita’ is even beyond that.

This ‘I am’ concept was not there prior to what you call ‘birth’. So as this concept has appeared, it will also go away. How am I affected? In no way whatsoever, because it is not true. This applies to all concepts. Prior to birth and after birth, whatever knowledge I have, my own, without hearing it from any one, that is the only true knowledge I accept. And the proof lies in my guru’s words.

The body dies. This means what? It means only the thought ‘I am’, that concept, has disappeared. Nothing has happened to the knower of the whole happening. So long as the basic concept ‘I am’ is there, the conceptual element cannot disappear. It is the concept itself that has given various names to itself, but it is still the same concept. Before this concept of ‘I am’ came on you, were you happy or unhappy? Was there even any feeling of happiness or unhappiness? Any of the dualities? In the absence of the basic concept ‘I am’, there is no thought, no awareness, and no consciousness of one’s existence.

Originally, I am untainted – uncovered by anything, without stigma – since nobody existed prior to me. Nor do I entertain any concepts about somebody existing, before me. Everything is in the form of the manifested world, after the appearance of the knowledge ‘I am’ with the body. Together with the body and the indwelling ‘ I amness’ everything is. Prior to the appearance of this body and the knowledge ‘I am’, what was there?

The feeling ‘I am’ is the quintessence of everything, but I the Absolute am not that. That ‘I amness’ is the highest knowledge. And this is surrendered here by the abidance in the action.

So long as the concept ‘I am’ is still there, they (people who contact maharaj) have not gone beyond or prior to it; they have not gone beyond the total manifestation. So now when people come here, I talk with them, from what level am I talking? I am talking from the level that you are consciousness and not the body-mind. In my state whatever comes out is from the total manifestation, not from the point of view of the Absolute. Hang on to that consciousness, which is your only capital, and do ‘dhyana’ and let that unfold whatever knowledge has to be unfolded.

Is this not Atman? A popular misconception seems to be that Atman is "I am", but isn't "I am" the Ahamkara?

Dear Pradip,

Rationale for stating that human consciousness having changing and unchanging components is that there are many books and scientific research that does not address or take into account one's subjective experience and also do not talk about unchanging self or Atman. These books and scientific research only address issues related to brain, cognition, psychology and neuroscience under the heading of human consciousness. These things relate to awareness and not Self-awareness. We all know only Brahman is Self-aware and/or Self-illuminating.

It is true that everything is made possible by the light of Brahman that is See-er, Hearer, Thinker and Knower. If we take Advaita Vedanta view then Human consciousness = Atman/Brahman and Animal Consciousness = Brahman as everything is nothing but Brahman. Then we see that Human Consciousness = Animal Consciousness. We all know that it is difficult for many of us to accept Human Consciousness = Animal Consciousness. I believe number of people who are aware of Advaita Vedanta view is quite small.

It is for these reasons I wanted to use non-Advaita Vedanta view and something that is independent of philosophical, religious and cultural background to arrive at conclusion for discussion with people who do not know Advaita Vedanta. .

Regards,
Rajendra

Dear Pradip,

I had changing body, feeling, mind, thought, and intellect i.e. content of one’s personality which are based on subject-object view of self as changing part of human consciousness or ordinary consciousness.

We see that in this world most of us do miss-identification or miss-attribution or superimposition of non-self (body, feeling, thought, mind, intellect) on Self (Atman). We have concept of self-actualization like in Maslow’s hierarchy in this world which various scholars have termed it is Becoming.

One knows that certain aspects of personality are changing yet certain aspects are fixed. Inner presence of eternal Brahman (Universal-Self or Atman) inspires human life with the present sense of eternity despite perishable nature of human body, changing thoughts and feeling etc. I have termed unchanging part of one’s personality i.e. Being (Atman or Brahman)

People will not accept Buddhism if this changing part of one’s personality did not exists. It is only the denial of Self (Atman or Brahman) in Buddhism I think is contradictory. I believe Hinduism accepts changing part and makes life meaningful by asking one to follow path of - Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha, the Four Purusharthas. I believe Hinduism places importance on both becoming and being aspects of one's personality.

Regards,
Rajendra

Note: May be I should have used word personality instead of ego.

Dear Pradip,

If we take I-consciousness = Atman and then what you say is correct i.e. I-consciousness = Pure Consciousness.
I had taken I-consciousness = Subjective-Objective based view based on duality.

Anyway my key reason for bringing the issue of concept of self was to see if we all agree that Human consciousness in this dual world is comprised of changing part (nature or Prakriti, associated with ego) and unchanging part (Atman or Brahman)

This brings up the original question if Buddhist concept of Self is equated or identified with changing part?
I think if one identifies Brahman/Atman with calm, blissful and ever present ocean then Buddhist concept of Self is ever changing waves in the ocean.

Regards,
Rajendra

Note: I am in complete agreement with what Sri Ramakrishna has said, only difference is context or meaning that I was using,

Hello All,

I am assuming that we all agree that concept of self should be based on experience. There should not be any contradiction/conflict if it is based on experience. Now let us see if which view most of the people will agree irrespective of philosophical background.

Concept of Self cannot be reduced to equation; however I have taken the liberty to reduce self to a set of following equations.

•Self = Consciousness
•Human Self = Outer Self + Inner self
•Human Consciousness = Changing attributes + Eternal essence
•Human Consciousness = Becoming + Being
•Human Self = I-subjective self + Universal Self
•Human Self = Purusha + Praktri
•Human Consciousness = I-consciousness + Pure Consciousness
•I-consciousness = Subjective-Objective based view or based on duality
•Pure Consciousness = Non-dual view

If we take above to be valid or intuitive equations then we see inconsistencies even if we do not consider law of karma or meaningless of the effort of meditation.

Here are some of the questions that come to my mind.

Does it make sense to identify with only changing or unchanging view of self?

Are there any other concepts of Self that people will agree or accept irrespective of cultural or religious or philosophical background?

Regards,

Rajendra

Note:

Here are some of the views of Self based on Hindu philosophy

•Atman = Essential Self
•Atman = Inner Self
•Atman = Individual Self
•Atman = Brahman
•Brahman = Universal Self

http://www.kamakotimandali.com...&tb=1&pb=1

shankara’s major critique of momentariness occurs in the context of sarvAstivAda, apparently in its sautrAntic version. Shankara thus questions the doctrine of momentariness as inadequate to explain the facts of identity, especially personal identity, and the fact of causation itself. ‘Those who maintain that everything has a momentary existence only admit that when the thing existing in the second moment enters into being the thing existing in the first moment ceases to be. On this admission it is impossible to establish between the two things the relation of cause and effect, since the former momentary existence which ceases or has ceased to be, and so has entered into the state of non-existence, cannot be the cause of the later momentary existence’. Nor could it be assumed that the former momentary existence when its process has reached a mature conclusion and it is still in a positive state, is the cause of the later moment. This would imply that the finished positive product becomes active once again and gets connected with the next moment. Nor would it help to assume that the mere existence of the antecedent moment constitutes its causal efficiency because it still remains unconnected with the succeeding moment. If the nature of the cause does not influence the nature of the effect, the two cannot be called cause and effect. If the nature of the cause persists in the effect, as that of clay in the pot, the principle of momentariness would be given up. If, on the other hand, the nature of the cause were to be assumed not to color the nature of the effect at all, one would be able to affirm the causal relation arbitrarily. Again, the production, and destruction of a thing being held to be simultaneous, how are they to be connected with its own nature or being? The three could not be identical, else the three terms would become synonymous. Nor could the three be distinguished as different states of the same thing because then one moment will in effect be trifurcated. Nor could the production and destruction of a thing be different from its being because in that case its being would be untouched by them and become perpetual. Nor finally could the production or destruction of a thing be merely their perception or non-perception which being subjective will leave the object untouched and make it eternal once again. Indeed, since the antecedent moment ceases before the rise of the subsequent one, the effect would appear to arise without a cause which would contradict the Buddhist belief in causality. If the antecedent moment is held to last till the subsequent moment arises, cause and effect would become simultaneous, and the principle of momentariness too would be falsified. In the brhadAraNyaka bhAShya too shankara attacks the concepts of production out of nothing and momentariness on several grounds. Recognition or the perception of similarity would both be impossible if everything is momentary.

It is difficult understand the concept of Buddhist non-duality which I think is different from non-dual Brahman. I believe Buddhist non-duality allows inclusion of the middle between two opposites. This opens up the possibility of considering both A and ~A, as well as neither A nor ~A, as well as the opposites themselves. (Sounds like Fuzzy logic)

Dear Rajendraji,

Here I think the reasoning is not to show Non-Duality, but the futility of taking absolute positions/stances about dualistic phenomena.

One post that is typical of the Buddhist position I have encountered:

No, Anatta is not a neti neti process because the neti neti process assumes a Self behind all the not-self. The neti-neti approach is contradictory to the Anatta teaching.

For example the Buddha specifically said that you cannot find the Tathagatha inside nor apart from the five skandhas. This means, as explained earlier, the so called 'self' actually cannot be found or located just as the word 'weather' cannot be found or located as something inherently existing - it is merely a convention for a process of self-luminous but empty phenomenality, in which no truly existing 'weather'/'self' can be found within nor apart from them.

Excerpts from Buddha's teachings http://www.accesstoi...2.086.than.html

..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

"No, lord."...

And all the great Buddhist masters from the past said the same things:

As Chandrakirti states:

"A chariot is not asserted to be other than its parts,
Nor non-other. It also does not possess them.
It is not in the parts, nor are the parts in it.
It is not the mere collection [of its parts], nor is it their shape.
[The self and the aggregates are] similar."

And Padmasambhava states:

"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.

This is not the case, so were the second true,
That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.

As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.
The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."

And Nagarjuna states:

“The Tathagata is not the aggregates; nor is he other
than the aggregates.
The aggregates are not in him nor is he in them.
The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates.
What Tathagata is there?”


That process of neti neti is still part of the practice of self inquiry, and self inquiry leads to the realization of I AM, but the neti neti part is still part of the inquiry prior to realization - prior to Thusness Stage 1. The neti neti part itself is not realization, but is part of the process leading to the realization of I AM, but not the realization of Anatta (Anatta would require a different type of contemplation practice, particularly Vipassana).

But the realization of Anatta (Stage 5) is a direct realization and does not come from negating.

Quote
It does not remove the background because that which removes the background, that which thinks it is multiplicity is still the limited self/consciousness...
No. First of all, in realizing anatta, you don't 'think it is the multiplicity'.

Rather, the multiplicity affirms itself without thinking. Sound hears, scenery sees, there is no seer or hearer, etc.

It is deconstructing the One Mind by realizing that it is the process... just like realizing the word 'Weather' is simply a convention but does not mean something independent unchanging or inherent/located somewhere in or apart from the process of weatherly phenomena.

So as Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh said:

Sunshine and Green Leaves

"When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'."

"..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...."

"In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one."

It is a matter of difference in interpretation...the experience is the same.

Dear Pradip,

You have raised good questions. Similar questions were raised by Sri Adi Shankaracharya. We all know he defeated Buddhist monks in debates by showing contradictions and meaningless of philosophy of Sunayata.

We do not know what exactly the message of Sri Gautama Buddha was, but what matters now is what exists in today’s Buddhist philosophy. My intention over here is to show Buddhist philosophy as it exists today. We can only go by what is attributed to him. We all agree that Buddha was very intelligent, compassionate etc. I believe he had realized or experienced Brahman.

Non-Duality

It is difficult understand the concept of Buddhist non-duality which I think is different from non-dual Brahman. I believe Buddhist non-duality allows inclusion of the middle between two opposites. This opens up the possibility of considering both A and ~A, as well as neither A nor ~A, as well as the opposites themselves. (Sounds like Fuzzy logic)

Personal Identity

Personal identity must be granted for justice to be made, since only the same person who did something right or wrong may be appropriately rewarded or punished. On the other hand person cannot be assumed to remain identical or unchanged if improvement is expected. Gautama tried to avoid being caught between the horns of this dilemma by choosing the middle course between the opposite poles of the sameness-versus-change antimony. In Visuddhimagga (xvii), he is reported as saying that the doctrine of the middle course

rejects the heresy that he who experiences the fruit of the deed is the same one who performed the deed, and also rejects the converse one that he who experiences the fruit of a deed is different from the one who performed the deed… (Quoted in Mathur, 1978, p 257 Buddhism in translations)
(Source: Self and Identity in Modern Psychology and Indian Thought (Path in Psychology) By Anand C. Paranjpe


Regards,

Rajendra

Dear Pradip,

Good article on an important topic based on original sources. All Indic traditions are based on experience and Buddhism is no exception. Gautama tamed runaway human consciousness by complete will power and yogic meditations. Buddhism is based on his experience. In my view Buddhism is about addressing issues of human consciousness while Vedanta is about universal or absolute consciousness also known as Brahman. It appears that Buddhism is about becoming like Maslowian process for nirvana where as Vedanta is about being or knowing one’s true nature for moksha.

Recently I came across a very good book: Self and Identity in Modern Psychology and Indian Thought (Path in Psychology) By Anand C. Paranjpe. Following things from the book, I have added only headings. I strongly recommend this book for any who is interested in knowing basis of Indic thought.

Self is psycho-physical being

According to Gautama; a person with mind and body consists of five elements (1) material form (2) feeling or sensation (3) perception (4) mental dispositions (5) reason or intelligence. All of these aspects of personhood are impermanent. They have no absolute existence: they exist only relatively or in loose relationship with another.

Concept of Self

Against this background of this sort of reasoning, what Gautama denied was the concept of self, soul or ego as an abiding or unchanging entity.

Principle of causality

One of the Gautama’s axiomatic assumptions was the “law of dependent origination” (paticcasamuppada in Pali, pratityasamutpada in Sanskrit), which suggests that “from the arising of this that arises: if this is not that does not come” (Samyutta-nikaya II, 64-65 see Conze, Horner… ). This amounts basically to acceptance of causality.

Dhamma and Karma

Gautama believed in the concept of dhamma, which implied a cosmic principle of orderliness in physical, psychical and moral domains. The following words from Suttapitaka indicate Buddhist assumptions of a moral order in the world: “Not of the like result are right and wrong…. Wrong leads to baleful, right to happy doom [sic]”. These words echo the “Law of Karma,”……….. Moreover most Buddhist also believe in the idea of the transmission of the consequences of good and bad actions across life cycles.

Puzzle #1

How could the Buddha believe, on the one hand in perpetual moral accountability of person in an endless series of life cycles and, on the other hand deny an abiding self at the same time.

Solution to Puzzle #1

The answer to this puzzle lies in the Buddhist view that what transfers from one life cycle to another in the ‘wheel of existence” (bhavacakra) is not some kind of a fixed ‘soul’, but karma, meaning consequences of good and bad actions. A new form of life is born when an old one dies, even as one candle extinguishes while passing its flame to the next. Thus according to Buddhist as Rhys Davids (1901) puts it, “birth is not rebirth, but new birth; transmigration of soul becomes transmigration of karma; metempsychosis gives way to metamorphosis”

Puzzle #2

Even if one accepts, the idea that after the end of one cycle a different one begins, what about the continuity within any given cycle? Would it not be the same person who enjoys or suffers consequences of one’s own good or bad actions while undergoing changes or metamorphoses within given life cycle?

Solution to Puzzle #2

Gautama’s unique way of reconciling antinomies like sameness and change, or permanence and impermanence, suggests a way out of this dilemma. Here is the translation of his words attributed to him in a text known as Udana:

Some say that the “I” endures after death; others say it perishes. Both have fallen into grievous error. For if the “I” be perishable, the fruit people strive for will perish too and deliverance will be without merit. If others say, the “I” does not perish; it must be identical and unchanging. The moral aims and salvation would be unnecessary, for there would be no use in attempting to change the unchangeable … (words from Udana quoted by Krishnan, 1952, p359)

Why Nirvana?

Literal meaning of Sanskrit term nirvana (Pali: nibbana) is to extinguish flame or fire. Buddhist claims that the ostensibly planned and deliberate cessation of thought processes effectively tames or extinguishes desires that fuel the self-perpetuating process of that manifest in life. According to Samyutta-nikaya (II, 117), “The stopping of becoming is nirvana” (Conze et al.1954 p, 92). .. The Pali texts describe it as “a happy state, as pure annihilation, as an inconceivable existence or as a changeless state”. Regardless of differences of opinion about its precise nature, nirvana does not amount to death; one who attains it comes back to ordinary states of awareness: the flame is rekindled so to speak.

Finally

Gautama’s silence on the issue of permanence versus impermanence of the self suggests that there is no definite answer to this question, one way or another.


Regards,
Rajendra

Dear Pradipda,

Great article. Here is what some of my "Buddha-bum" friends (http://www.thetaobums.com/inde...tent-self/)
had to say...

One such comment:

Nails in the coffin? LOL, certainly not from this article.

You don't even have to look to past life to understand. Since the writer took the analogy of a murderer so will I. Lets say that as a young man I killed someone because maybe I just thought it's cool. Fortunatelly I didn't get busted. But after a few years, I changed, realized that that way of thinking is no good and deeply regreted what I've done. Unfortunatelly after these few years the police solved the case and found it was me and caught me. Now, I am no longer the same person I was years ago when I commited the murder but I am still sentenced to death. Is that fair? Perhaps not, but fairness doesn't necessarily enter into the equation, after all, I'm still the same person who comitted the crime.

I always find it laughable when people talking about karma talk about fairness. Karma doesn't care about you. It's not some kind of living thing. It's like if you accidentally fell into a meat grinder and I'd say "oh man, that meat grinder sure is unfair, it killed that good guy.".

But I guess I shouldn't expect deists to be able to understand these things.

I forgot to mention-the font size is very comfortable to read.
ns

Dear Pradipda
Thank you for the interesting article.
When was the Samyutta Niyaka authored? Well after Buddha's time? Could his disciples have felt they should project an alternative to the challenge of existing Sanatanic thoughts - but having drawn ideas from the same well ,it may be that they felt the need to make it look different and ended up with contradictions.
Yes , it seems like what you conclude in the last paragraph-the Buddhist idea of self as we understand here doesnt seem like the concept of Atman.
Warm regards
ns