What the Buddha Taught 9

According to the doctrine of Conditioned Genesis and the analysis of being into Five Aggregates, the idea of an abiding, immortal substance in man or outside, whether it is called Atman, No-Soul or No-Self.

To avoid confusion, it should be mentioned here that there are two kinds of truths: conventional truth and ultimate reality.  When we use such expressions in our daily life as ‘I,’ ‘you,’ ‘being,’ ‘individual,’ etc., we do not lie because there is no self or being as such, but we speak a truth conforming to the world's convention.  But the ultimate truth is that there is no ‘I’ or ‘being’ in reality. As the Mahayana-sutralankara says, ‘A person should be mentioned as existing only in designation (i.e., conventionally there is a being), but not in reality (or substance dravya).

‘The negation of an imperishable Atman is the common characteristic of all dogmatic systems of the Lesser as well as the Great Vehicle, and there is, therefore, no reason to assume that Buddhist tradition, which is in complete agreement on this point, has deviated from the Buddha’s original teaching.

It is, therefore, curious that, recently, there should have been a vain attempt by a few scholars to smuggle the idea of self into the teaching of the Buddha, which was quite contrary to the spirit of Buddhism.  These scholars respect, admire, and venerate the Buddha and his teachings.  They look up to Buddhism. But they cannot imagine that the Buddha, whom they consider the most transparent and profound thinker, could have denied the existence of an Atman or Self, which they need so much.  They unconsciously seek the support of the Buddha for this need for eternal existence course, not in a petty individual self with small, but in the big Self with a capital S.

It is better to say frankly that one believes in an Atman or Self. Or one may even say that the Buddha was wrong in denying the existence of an Atman. But certainly, it will not do for anyone to try to introduce into Buddhism an idea that the Buddha never accepted, as we can see from the extant original texts.

Religions that believe in God and Soul make no secret of these two ideas; on the contrary, they proclaim them constantly and repeatedly in the most eloquent terms. If the Buddha had accepted these two crucial ideas in all religions, he would have declared them publicly, as he had spoken about other things. He would not have left them hidden to be discovered only 25 centuries after his death.

People become nervous at the idea that the Buddha’s teaching of Anatta will destroy the self they imagine they have. The Buddha was not unaware of this.

A bhikkhu once asked him: ‘Sir, is there a case where one is tormented when something permanent within oneself is not found?’

‘Yes, bhikkhu, there is,’ answered the Buddha. ‘A man has the following view: “The universe is that Atman, I shall be that after death, permanent, abiding, ever-lasting, unchanging, and I shall exist as such for eternity.” He hears the Tathagata or a disciple of his, preaching the doctrine aiming at destroying all speculative views...aiming at the extinction of “thirst,” aiming at detachment, cessation, Nirvana.  Then that man thinks: “I will be annihilated, I will be destroyed, I will be no more.” So he mourns, worries himself, laments, weeps, beats his best, and becomes bewildered.  Thus, O bhikkhu, there is a case where one is tormented when something permanent within oneself is not found. ㅇ

Elsewhere, the Buddha says: ‘O bhikkhus, this idea that I may not be, I may not have, is frightening to the uninstructed world.’

Those who want to find a ‘Self’ in Buddhism argue as follows: It is true that the Buddha analyses being into matter, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness and says that none of these things is self.  But he does not say there is no self in man or anywhere else, apart from these aggregate.

This position is untenable for two reasons:

One is that, according to the Buddha’s teaching, a being is composed only of these Five Aggregates and nothing more. Nowhere has he said there was anything more than these Five Aggregates in a being.

The second reason is that the Buddha categorically, unequivocally, in more than one place, denied the existence of Atman, Soul, Self, or Ego within man, without, or anywhere else in the universe. Let us take some examples.

Three verses in the Dhammapada are significant and essential to the Buddha’s teaching. They are nos. 5, 6, and 7 of chapter XX.

The first two verses say:

‘All conditioned things are impermanent’ and ‘All conditioned things are dukkha.’

The third verse says:

‘All dhammas are without self’.

It should be carefully observed that the word samskara, ' conditioned things,' is used in the first two verses. But the word dhamma is used in its place in the third verse. Why did the third verse not use the phrase samskara, ‘conditioned things,’ as the previous two verses, and why did it use the term dhamma instead? Here lies the crux of the whole matter.

The term samskara denotes the Five Aggregates, all conditioned, interdependent, relative things and physical and mental states.  If the third verse said: ‘All samskara (conditioned things) are without self,’ then one might think that, although conditioned things are without self, there may be a Self outside conditioned things, outside the Five Aggregates.  To avoid misunderstanding, the term dhamma is used in the third verse.

The term dhamma is much broader than samkhara. There is no term in Buddhist terminology broader than dhamma.  It includes the conditioned things and states and the non-conditioned, the Absolute, Nirvana.  There is nothing in the universe or outside, good or bad, conditioned or non-conditioned, relative or absolute, which is not included in this term.  Therefore, it is pretty clear that according to this statement: “All dhammas are without Self’, there is no Self, no Atman, not only in the Five Aggregates but nowhere else outside them or apart from them.

According to the Theravada teaching, there is no self in the individual or dhammas.  The Mahayana Buddhist philosophy maintains the same position, without the slightest difference, on this point, emphasizing dharma-nairatmya and pudgala-nairatmya.

In the Alagaddupama-sutta of the Majjhima-nikaya, addressing his disciples, the Buddha said: ‘O bhikkhus, accept a soul-theory, in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation.

If there had been any soul theory that the Buddha had accepted, he would undoubtedly have explained it here because he asked the bhikkhus to take that soul theory, which did not produce suffering.  But in the Buddha’s view, there is no such soul theory, and any soul theory, whatever it may be, however subtle and sublime, is false and imaginary, creating all kinds of problems, producing in its train grief, lamentation, suffering, distress, tribulation and trouble.

Continuing the discourse, the Buddha said in the same sutta: ‘O bhikkhus when neither self nor anything about self can truly and be foud, this speculative view: “The universe is that Atman (Soul); I shall be that after death, permanent, abiding, ever-lasting, unchanging, and I shall exist as such for eternity”-is it not wholly and completely foolish?’

Here, the Buddha explicitly states that an Atman, or Soul, or Self, is nowhere to be found in reality, and it is foolish to believe that such a thing exists.

Those who seek a self in the Buddha’s teaching quote a few examples which they first translate wrongly and then misinterpret. One of them is the well-known line Atta hi attano natho from the Dhammapada, translated as ‘Self is the lord of self,’ and then interpreted to mean that the big Self is the lord of the small self.

First of all, this translation is incorrect.  Atta here does not mean self in the sense of soul. In Pali, the word atta is generally used as a reflexive or indefinite pronoun, except in a few cases where it specifically and philosophically refers to soul theory, as we have seen above. But in general usage, as in the XII chapter in the Dhammapada where this line occurs, and in many other places, it is used as a reflexive or indefinite pronoun meaning ‘myself,’ ‘yourself,’ ‘himself,’ ‘one,’ ‘oneself,’ etc.

Next, Natho does not mean ‘lord,’ but ‘refuge,’ ‘support,’ ‘help,’ and ‘protection.’  Therefore, Atta hi attano natho means ‘One is one’s refuge’ or ‘One is one’s help’ or ‘support’. It has nothing to do with any metaphysical soul or self.  It simply means you have to rely on yourself, not others.

Another example of the attempt to introduce the idea of self into the Buddha’s teaching is in the well-known words Attadipa viharatha and attasarana anannasarana, which are taken out of context in the Mahaparinibbana-sutta.  This phrase means: ‘Dwell making yourselves your island (support), making yourselves your refuge, and not anyone else as your refuge.’ Those who wish to see a self in Buddhism interpret the words attadipa and attasarana, ‘taking self as a lamp,’ or ‘taking self as a refuge.’

We cannot understand the full meaning and significance of the Buddha's advice to Ananda unless we consider the background and context in which these words were spoken.

The Buddha was at the time staying at a village called Beluva. It was just three months before his death, Parinirvana.  At this time, he was eighty years old and was suffering from a severe illness, almost dying. But he thought it was not proper for him to die without breaking it to his disciples, who were near and dear to him. So, with courage and determination, he bore all his pains, got the better of his illness, and recovered. But his health was still poor. After his recovery, he was seated in the shade outside his residence one day.  Ananda, the most devoted attendant of the Buddha, went to his beloved Master, sat near him, and said: ‘Sir, I have looked after the health of the Blessed One; I have looked after him in his illness. But at the sight of the illness of the Blessed One, the horizon became dim to me, and my faculties were no longer clear. Yet there was one little consolation; I thought the Blessed One would not pass away until he had left instructions touching the Order of the Sangha.’

Then the Buddha, full of compassion and human feelings, gently spoke to his devoted and beloved attendant: ‘Ananda, what does the Order of the Sangha expect from me? I have taught the Dhamma (Truth) without distinguishing between exoteric and esoteric.  About the truth, the Tathagata has nothing like the closed fist of a teacher.  Surely, Ananda, if anyone thinks that he will lead the Sangha and that the Sangha should depend on him, let him follow his instructions. But the Tathagata has no such idea. Why should he then leave instructions concerning the Sangha? I am now eighty years old, Ananda. As a worn-out cart has to be kept going by repairs, it seems that the body of the Tathagata can only be kept going by repairs.  Therefore, Ananda, dwell making yourselves your island, making yourselves, not anyone else, your refuge; making the Dhamma your island, the Dhamma your refuge, nothing else your refuge.

What the Buddha wanted to convey to Ananda is quite clear. The latter was sad and depressed. He thought that they would all be lonely, helpless, without a refuge, without a leader after their great Teacher’s death.  So the Buddha gave him consolation, courage, and confidence, saying they should depend on themselves and the Dhamma he taught and not on anyone else. Here, the question of a metaphysical Atman, or Self, is entirely beside the point.

출처: https://storytellingis.tistory.com/3 [붓다:티스토리]