Theravadan vs Mahayana Understanding of No-Self

[Shade]

Hello everyone!

I read an article regarding the Buddhist idea of no-self from a Theravadan perspective and it got me wondering, do Theravadan and Mayahana Buddhists view the idea of no-self differently? For reference, here is the article:

https://tricycle.org/magazine/there-no-self/

I ask because in my understanding the teachings of impermanence, dukkha and no-self are basic Buddhist teachings common to, I would assume, all schools of Buddhism.

Thanks!

Gassho,

Chukyo

ST/LAH

[Jundo]

Hello everyone!

I read an article regarding the Buddhist idea of no-self from a Theravadan perspective and it got me wondering, do Theravadan and Mayahana Buddhists view the idea of no-self differently? For reference, here is the article:

https://tricycle.org/magazine/there-no-self/

I ask because in my understanding the teachings of impermanence, dukkha and no-self are basic Buddhist teachings common to, I would assume, all schools of Buddhism.

Thanks!

Gassho,

Chukyo

ST/LAH

In a nutshell, perhaps the Mahayanists expanded the concerns of "not-self" to all phenomena of reality, beyond merely the human person. As well, there is a greater emphasis on not just realizing that the person is empty (so we should not be attached to its desires, and should realize an extinction of self never to be born again), to finding that the absence of separate self-existence results in the re-finding (because true all along, whether realized or not) of a flowing "wholeness" which we, and all things, beings and moments actually are when we see through the separate self of things. This is liberation. Separate things, for example, come and go, are born and die, but the flowing wholeness of all flows on and on. When we find our True Self as this "flowing on and on," there is no birth, no death, no suffering.

Also, of course, we have this little self which is how we function each days. Yet we are also the flowing wholeness, like two sides of a no sided coin. If we are lost in this little self, we suffer. If we are only the flowing wholeness, we cannot function in the world and live. Realizing both at once, as one, is liberating.

Something like that.

Gassho, j

[Kokuu]

Hi Chukyo

Yes, as Jundo has said, Theravada and early Buddhism largely talks about not-self (anatta) in relation to the self, and the five aggregates. This is laid out well in the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta:

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever form, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that form must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever feeling, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that feeling must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever perception, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that perception must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever mental formations, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all those mental formations must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'These are not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever consciousness, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that consciousness must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

Mahayana teachings, on the other hand, widened the perspective of anatta and sunyata (emptiness) to include all things, with this approach being laid out in the Prajnaparamita (Perfection of Wisdom) literature such as The Diamond Sutra, Heart Sutra, Perfection of Wisdom in 8000 Lines etc giving us lines such 'form is emptiness, emptiness is form' from The Heart Sutra which draws on the early teachings above, and then flips them on their head - if form is fundamentally empty because of being dependent on other things, then all other things manifest as form.

Nagarjuna also developed his system of Madhyamika philosophy through a logical analysis of dependent-arising (pratitya-samudpada) stating that:

Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation
Is itself the Middle Way

-- Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

And also:

Without recourse to the conventional
The ultimate cannot be shown

Through this he understood that even his own philosophy was fundamentally empty, and true understanding is beyond words:

All philosophies are mental fabrications. There has never been a single doctrine by which one could enter the true essence of things

From this, we have Zen texts such as the Sandokai (The Identity of Relative and Absolute) by Shitou Xiqian (700-790) which draws on Nagarjuna's ideas of conventional and absolute reality (known as the 'two truths') and teachings such as Dogen's own Genjokoan (The Realised Universe) which he opens with the lines:

As all things are buddha-dharma, there are delusion, realization, practice, birth and death, buddhas and sentient beings. As myriad things are without an abiding self, there is no delusion, no realization, no buddha, no sentient being, no birth and death.

Because of the fact that all things are without an abiding self, he goes on to talk about the fundamental wholeness of the universe in writings such as Ikka-no-myojo (One Great Pearl) with lines quoted from Xuansha Shibei (835-908):

The entire world of the ten directions is one bright pearl

Thus, we go from the Theravadin analysis of the self into five impermanent aggregates into Mahayana thinking that all things are empty, and reality is a vast interconnected whole which produces the ever-changing world of form that we see. The Buddha himself did not answer a Brahmin who questioned him about whether or not the self existed or not, as he said that taking either stance would be incorrect. Similarly, Nagarjuna warned against falling into either the materialistic view of eternalism, or nihilistic view of nothing existing. Therefore in Zen, we say that things are 'not two', neither the same nor different.


The realisation that everything is empty may seem to go beyond the Buddha's focus on freeing his monks from the idea of the personal self but the last words he is said to have spoken on his deathbed emphasise the nature of all things:

Behold, O monks, this is my last advice to you. All component things in the world are conditioned and do not last. Be a lamp unto yourself.

Mahayana thought, in my opinion, made this clearer but in no way goes against the original teachings as we know them.


Apologies for length, this is just a snyopsis and I still got a bit carried away!

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[Shade]

In a nutshell, perhaps the Mahayanists expanded the concerns of "not-self" to all phenomena of reality, beyond merely the human person. As well, there is a greater emphasis on not just realizing that the person is empty (so we should not be attached to its desires, and should realize an extinction of self never to be born again), to finding that the absence of separate self-existence results in the re-finding (because true all along, whether realized or not) of a flowing "wholeness" which we, and all things, beings and moments actually are when we see through the separate self of things. This is liberation. Separate things, for example, come and go, are born and die, but the flowing wholeness of all flows on and on. When we find our True Self as this "flowing on and on," there is no birth, no death, no suffering.

Also, of course, we have this little self which is how we function each days. Yet we are also the flowing wholeness, like two sides of a no sided coin. If we are lost in this little self, we suffer. If we are only the flowing wholeness, we cannot function in the world and live. Realizing both at once, as one, is liberating.

Something like that.

Gassho, j

Hello Jundo,

Thanks for the wonderful response! This helped clear things up quite a bit.

Gassho,

Chukyo

ST/LAH

[Shade]

Hi Chukyo

Yes, as Jundo has said, Theravada and early Buddhism largely talks about not-self (anatta) in relation to the self, and the five aggregates. This is laid out well in the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta:




Mahayana teachings, on the other hand, widened the perspective of anatta and sunyata (emptiness) to include all things, with this approach being laid out in the Prajnaparamita (Perfection of Wisdom) literature such as The Diamond Sutra, Heart Sutra, Perfection of Wisdom in 8000 Lines etc giving us lines such 'form is emptiness, emptiness is form' from The Heart Sutra which draws on the early teachings above, and then flips them on their head - if form is fundamentally empty because of being dependent on other things, then all other things manifest as form.

Nagarjuna also developed his system of Madhyamika philosophy through a logical analysis of dependent-arising (pratitya-samudpada) stating that:



And also:



Through this he understood that even his own philosophy was fundamentally empty, and true understanding is beyond words:




From this, we have Zen texts such as the Sandokai (The Identity of Relative and Absolute) by Shitou Xiqian (700-790) which draws on Nagarjuna's ideas of conventional and absolute reality (known as the 'two truths') and teachings such as Dogen's own Genjokoan (The Realised Universe) which he opens with the lines:



Because of the fact that all things are without an abiding self, he goes on to talk about the fundamental wholeness of the universe in writings such as Ikka-no-myojo (One Great Pearl) with lines quoted from Xuansha Shibei (835-908):




Thus, we go from the Theravadin analysis of the self into five impermanent aggregates into Mahayana thinking that all things are empty, and reality is a vast interconnected whole which produces the ever-changing world of form that we see. The Buddha himself did not answer a Brahmin who questioned him about whether or not the self existed or not, as he said that taking either stance would be incorrect. Similarly, Nagarjuna warned against falling into either the materialistic view of eternalism, or nihilistic view of nothing existing. Therefore in Zen, we say that things are 'not two', neither the same nor different.


The realisation that everything is empty may seem to go beyond the Buddha's focus on freeing his monks from the idea of the personal self but the last words he is said to have spoken on his deathbed emphasise the nature of all things:



Mahayana thought, in my opinion, made this clearer but in no way goes against the original teachings as we know them.


Apologies for length, this is just a snyopsis and I still got a bit carried away!

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

Hello Kokuu,

Thanks for your response to my question! I appreciate all the different quotes and perspectives that you included. This certainly helps to clarify how these ideas are interpreted by different traditions.

Gassho,

Chukyo

ST/LAH

[Heisoku]

Wonderful responses from Jundo and Kokuu.
Gassho
Heisoku
SATLA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vanbui]

I completely concur with Heisoku. Wonderfully thorough responses from Jundo and Kokuu.

Thank you for asking this question, Chukyo.

Gassho,
SAT+ LAH
Van

[usuallymatt]

Also, of course, we have this little self which is how we function each days. Yet we are also the flowing wholeness, like two sides of a no sided coin. If we are lost in this little self, we suffer. If we are only the flowing wholeness, we cannot function in the world and live. Realizing both at once, as one, is liberating.

Thanks so much. I think that helped clear something up for me.

Gassho, Matt
ST