Did The Buddha Teach No-Self? SN 22.47 Ways of Regarding Things

This was a request by Kirsten. I'm going to be reading it and discussing this. This is from the Samyutta Nikaya 22.47. Everybody can see this? Yep. Okay. This is called Ways of Regarding Things at Savatthi. Those ascetics and brahmins who regard anything as self in various ways all regard as self the five aggregates subject to clinging, or a certain one among them. What five? So here the Buddha is making a very important distinction between the Buddha Dhamma and other teachings. This is what separates or singles out the teachings of the Buddha compared to any other teachings, which is: the Buddha saw that there is, or there was at the time of his existence, the idea of a self, and that this self is understood as sat chit ananda.

This self is independent or self-existing. Chit, it is consciousness, and it is ananda, it is the source and nature of bliss. And this is very important to understand: the Buddha never said that there is no self. There are many times where people will mistake this and say, the Buddha is saying no self. In fact, there's a book called No Self, No Problem, a catchy title, and it's a very interesting book. But Dhamma-wise, it's not technically correct.

The Buddha actually talked about anatta as not-self. And he had been asked a couple of times, this is what you teach. So do you conclude that there is a self? And if there is, what is that self? Or do you conclude that there is no self? And the Buddha didn't answer one way or the other.

And the reason is because Ananda asked him why he didn't give an answer, and he said, because if I told him that there is a self, his mind would cling to an idea of self. This is the same with what we have now, this radical non-dualism running amok with certain Vedantic teachings, where you know there is only self. I am self, this table is self, everything here is self, and it's all one thing, it's all consciousness. Where does that come from? These are all notions, these are all ideas, these are all things that we experience in that moment when somebody is instructing us to see in that way.

And we may do all kinds of things to hypnotize ourselves into believing that, yes, there is a self. And in fact, we will take on that view and defend it to the last moment that there is indeed a self. And we will try to persuade others to do the same. But the reality is the notion of self is in itself that notion. It is a concept, it is an idea, it is a belief. Really, likewise, when we say that there is no self, it is yet another belief.

Because if we say that there is no self, what do we mean by that? And if there is no self, then what is the point of anything? You see, the Buddha's whole system is related to having a balanced approach. If you were to boil down the Dhamma into one word, that's what it is: that is the middle path, that is the middle way. The middle way between the path of sensual desires or the path of asceticism, and the middle way in terms of there is existence and there is non-existence. And the middle path: there is dependent origination, with the arising of this there is the arising of that, with the cessation of this there is a cessation of that. So if we say that there is no self, it leads us towards non-existence. It leads us towards a more nihilistic approach: nothing really matters, why do anything at all? If there's no self, then where's karma? And all these other things come up.

And then there is also the very simple understanding that when we say there is no self, there can be the idea: what is that self that knows that there is no self? Right? So the Buddha talked about what is not self, not self. And here he's saying: because those ascetics and brahmins who regard anything as self in various ways all regard as self the five aggregates subject to clinging, or a certain one among them. Because the five aggregates are a wonderful classification system of all experience that we have. What are the five aggregates? Form, feeling, perception, formations and consciousness.

And if you look at the second, chronologically, the second discourse of the Buddha: the first discourse is the middle path of the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, and so on. It's the turning of the wheel. The second chronological discourse in the Buddha's life is the discussion of the five aggregates. Now, to me personally, as a practitioner, that is very important to understand.

He didn't say focus on your breath. He didn't say do walking meditation. He didn't say remember the virtues. He didn't say remember the devas. He didn't say have loving-kindness and compassion and all of these things. He was talking to the first five about the five aggregates. And what was he getting at? He was saying, if you look and study and reflect and contemplate and experience the five aggregates as not-self, then your mind will be liberated.

And in fact, when you look at the Upanisa Sutta, the Buddha goes in reverse, right? In the Upanisa Sutta, we talk about the twelve links of transcendental dependent origination, and there he says that there is the knowledge of liberation. And what is that knowledge of liberation? It is for one who knows and sees: for one who knows and sees what such is form, such is feeling, such is perception, such are formations, such is consciousness. In another sutta, I think it's called the Mahapadana Sutta in Digha Nikaya, probably Digha Nikaya 14 or 15, there is a section which talks about the Vipassi Buddha.

And it says there that for the Vipassi Buddha, he went through the links of dependent origination. He understood through his intuition the links of dependent origination. And seeing the links of dependent origination, he then saw the five aggregates subject to clinging and realized there is only these five aggregates. And those five aggregates are not subject to clinging because the clinging and the five aggregates are neither the same nor different. It is the clinging in itself, which is the identification with the five aggregates, that is the cause of suffering. It is the clinging, which is the identification of this is me, this is mine, this is myself in relation to the five aggregates, that is the cause of suffering here.

And seeing that, his mind was liberated. There is another sutta which talks about the understanding of the potfuls of food. And he talks about all the different kinds of merit that you achieve by giving to this person, giving to an animal, giving to a person, giving to a sotapanna, all the way to an arahant, to the Buddha, and so on. And then he says, if one were to have a finger-snap length of loving-kindness, that is worth more than all those pots of food.

And then at the final end, he says, and this is where we need to understand what he's talking about: he says, and the perception of impermanence is greater even than that. Now, what does that mean? Does that mean that we forgo loving-kindness? Does that mean we forgo compassion? Does that mean we forgo joy and equanimity? No. We see that the brahmaviharas are objects of meditation.

And they allow us to be able to experience this great and wonderful process that cleanses the chitta, the mind-heart, cleanses the field of the sense spaces, cleanses indeed the karma of oneself. Because when we have loving-kindness, it allows us to look at the same karma as just this. It goes from, oh my God, what's happening, to, oh, it's just this. It really is that shift.

Now, when I introduced the Five Aggregates Meditation at the Dependent Origination Symposium, some of you have heard it, that is to me really the gateway into the signless, into emptiness, into the unconditioned. And that is from the understanding of that impermanence. The perception of impermanence is even greater than all these. The understanding here is not that we have to see everything as okay, this is a rising, this is passing away, this is arising, this is passing away. People see that and they do that, and they have these very, very, very sharp minds, that they develop very concentrated minds,

but they don't have the essence of the Dhamma, which is also development of compassion. And so that's very dry so-called wisdom, and it's very dry experience that really doesn't get you anywhere. So what, I see impermanence, so what? And the reason I'm saying this is because you need both. You need compassion and wisdom. You need these two just as a bird needs two wings to fly. If you don't have compassion and just wisdom, then you're not anything more than just an academic and a scholar, right? But if you have compassion and no wisdom,

then it's very possible for a person to become submerged into the emotions of others without realizing this is not me, this is not mine, this is not myself. So when you have both, and this is what the Buddha is the embodiment of, both compassion and wisdom, then you know how to live life. You know how to understand what is happening in every moment of your life.

Just this moment right here is a moment of peace if we choose to do that. And all we need are compassion and wisdom to see that. So the five aggregates, if everybody or anybody has listened to it, it starts off with the development of loving-kindness. It starts off with the development of compassion and moves through the brahmaviharas. And then once the mind is quiet, once the mind is in a jhanic field, then we see impermanence. But we don't see it as academics. This is rising and this is passing away. We don't see it as the strobe-light kind of vision of this is one frame and this is the next frame.

Because people do that and they have that experience, and I know them personally, but they have the most active minds that you will ever see. It's not fully baked. The wisdom is not fully baked. The secret ingredient for the full development of wisdom is compassion. So, what do we mean by perception of impermanence? Really, this perception of impermanence is dependent upon the perception of causality and conditionality.

The seeing that with the arising of this, there is the arising of that. With the passing away of this, there's a passing away of that. That is conditionality, causality and conditionality. Seeing this, one realizes that all experience is ultimately impermanent. And therefore, we let go of trying to hold on to anything. Seeing this impermanence, we realize that there is suffering when we hold on.

And so we don't direct anything. We don't try to control the outcome of how our meditation is going to be. Try to control the outcome of how things are going to be. We are just in the seeing, there's only the seen. In the hearing, there's only the heard. In the sensing, there's only the sense. In the cognizing, there's only the cognized.

And thereby, our mind is undirected, desireless. Seeing this, our mind understands that this is not me, not mine, not myself. This is not self. And so we get into the realization of emptiness, into anatta, into sunyata. Seeing this, our mind sees things as they actually are. This is the knowledge and vision of things as they actually are. And this is the experience of a very deep sense of equanimity, where our mind is not affected one way or the other.

Seeing this, our mind then experiences disenchantment. Oh, I have seen your old ways, mind. I have seen how when I get caught up in this thought, ultimately it leads to suffering. And so our mind gets disengaged. Seeing this, our mind becomes dispassionate. Being dispassionate, our mind becomes non-stick. No matter how many things the mind will throw at itself to keep itself busy, the mind remains steady, remains still, it remains stable.

And it's like the mind becomes translucent. And that dispassion is the destruction of conceit, the destruction of the I am. Because it takes you to the signless. And when you are fully immersed in the signless, then no sense of I am exists. The very thoughts that arise in the very seeing of them, they are liberated. And so any I am that exists may arise as a reflection on what one saw, the same as when you experience nibbana. You don't actually know that you've experienced nibbana until you come out of it and you reflect: ah, something happened there.

And so, seeing this dispassion, one experiences liberation. So now let's get back into the based on this here, because the uninstructed worldling, who is not a seer of the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form. He regards feeling as self, or self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in self, or self as in feeling. He regards perception as self, or self as possessing perception, or perception as in self, or self as in perception.

He regards volitional formations as self, self as possessing volitional formations, volitional formations as in self, or self as in volitional formations. He regards, and this is the most important one, because we have our neo-Vedantins, we have our neo-Advaitins, we have our neo... non-dualists, who think this consciousness is self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. Let's break this down. This is really what the Buddha is referring to as the 20 self views. This is the belief in a personal self in relation to any of these five aggregates, which is what we call sakkaya ditthi. So let's just take the five aggregates as just one thing, so we understand: form, feeling, perception, intentions or volitional formations, and awareness or consciousness, and then self. So there is the idea that they are one and the same as self, but if you will look at the self as that touchstone of sat-chit-ananda, none of these aggregates can be seen as that self.

If we were to say that there's a self possessing these five aggregates, then that means there is a sixth form that we are not seeing. So how do we know that? There is only a knowing, there's only an intuiting, but that intuiting is just a concept. That there is a self that possesses these five aggregates is an idea, a mental picture. In fact, when we talk about our own bodies and stuff, we sometimes say the body as me. You know, I got hurt, or we'll say my arm got hurt, or we'll say I feel hurt, or my feelings are hurt. So what are we saying here? Why does the self continue to keep shifting? Because that is the case of the notion of self. It's a transactional process. It is a way of relating to the world.

But the cause of suffering, the craving that arises, is when we take this ephemeral, always changing sense of self, this notion, as something concrete, and then we take that as this is me, this is mine, this is myself. Now we have something to defend, and we're going to get into that, because this is very important to understand. So then he might say, we might say, that the five aggregates are in self. How can that be the case? Are we not just experiencing ourselves in the body? Are we not experiencing ourselves through the sense bases? How do we know that we as self are outside of the framework of the five aggregates?

Even consciousness. How can one actually know that? Or as self in the five aggregates? Now, yes, there is a sense that we are in the body, or that we are in body. There's a sense that, you know, we are behind the eyes and so on and so forth. But if you truly understood and saw this through deep meditation, you realize that actually it's arising because of causes and conditions. And if I just take away that notion of self, nothing changes, except for the fact that I feel more free when I take that away. And that feeling of freedom itself, that's not self. Yeah, that's also just an experience. Thus, now listen carefully. Thus this way of regarding things, as the notion I am, have not vanished in one. As I am has the I am has not vanished. This is what is sometimes translated as the ego, which is coming from the word ahamkara, the I-making, the my-making, the me-making. Ahamkara literally means to do me, to do I am, to make the I am.

And that is a function of the mind, because that's how we relate to the world. That's how we relate to how we need to keep our body secure, how we need to engage with the world. It is important to have boundaries. It is important to understand this is my space, and so on and so forth. Very important. Nobody is saying that we need to let go of all ideas in such a way that people can walk all over us and we can't defend what is basically the body or feelings, emotions and so on. So as the I am has not vanished, there takes place a descent of the five faculties: the eye faculty, the ear faculty, the nose faculty, the tongue faculty, the body faculty.

What this is saying is that as long as there is the ignorance, which is, practically speaking, the lack of mindfulness in every given moment, because mindfulness is the gatekeeper between feeling or experience and craving. It's the floodgate. It stops that process from further going into suffering. But it's interesting, because when there is the notion of I am present, there arises, he says, the descent of the eye faculty, the ear faculty, the nose faculty, the tongue faculty, the body faculty. And then there is the mind and mental phenomena, and so on.

Here he's referring to rebirth in that sense. When you say liberation means there is no more coming to new being, it means that we have let go of the notions of I am. And how does that happen? Well, when we speak to someone, when we interact with someone, when we are meditating, this letter, I, or this word, or this phrase, I am, carries with it the entire baggage of everything that we've ever experienced.

And we relate to all experience from that. And when we do that, there is the descent of these faculties and the mind clinging to a sense of self. But if we relate from the signless, we have no notions to defend. We have no concepts to adhere to. We have nothing that we need to relate to with reference to the baggage that's there.

That is freedom. In every moment, if we have that, a baggageless mind, without an I having been pushed from all of that, that is freedom. With that freedom, in every given moment, there is intuitive action, intuitive words that allow the function of the mind and body to do what it needs to do in reference to what is appropriate for every given situation.

And this is the natural application. You don't need even the intention there, because once the mind is in that space it automatically adheres to the Eightfold Path, which is in itself the cessation of suffering, the way to the cessation of suffering, which in itself is the cessation of karma, the way to the cessation of karma. So that statement, no self, no problem, it's a wonderful statement. But what it should be saying is: when I let go, when there is a letting go of all this mental baggage that comes from this puny little I, me, mine, myself.

When that goes away, then there is no problem. Fear, anxiety, depression, sadness, nostalgia, where do they come from? The notion of, oh, I was once this, or I wonder what will happen to me when this happens, or even in the present moment, the pride of I am this. All of that disappears when we let go and truly have that experience of: in the seeing, there's only the seeing; in the hearing, there's only the heard; and so on.

This is what that means. The five faculties remain right there, Bhikkhus, but in regard to them, the instructed noble disciple abandons ignorance, lets go of the lack of mindfulness, and arouses true knowledge. What is that true knowledge? The realization and understanding of dependent origination in relation to all experience. In other words, those levels of perception that I talked about.

The perception of causality leads to the perception of impermanence. The perception of impermanence leads to the perception of dukkha. The perception of dukkha leads to the perception of emptiness. The perception of emptiness leads to the perception of the knowledge of things as they actually are. The perception of that leads to disengagement. Disengagement leads to dispassion, and that leads to liberation.

To literally be six hard, that very subtle tension that we talk about, this, that is the tension of conceit, the set, the tension. And what is conceit? I don't like to use the word conceit because it just... what does that actually mean practically? Conceit comes from the word mana, which means to measure up: either I am better than this, or I'm equal to this, or I'm worse than this. That sense of measuring up goes away, and that is true freedom, because who gives a damn about what you are or who you are.

Everybody else is quite self-centered. They have their own problems to worry about, so you too have your own problems to worry about. But where do those problems come from? Those problems come from: I have to do something. I am subject to this. I am. I am. I am. I am. All of these things can be seen and let go. When you let go of this I, the capital I, let go of the me mind, myself, the tension that surrounds that particular experience, and let that go.

Just that is the end of suffering. You don't need to do anything else. May suffering ones be suffering free and the fear struck fearless be. May the grieving shed all grief and may all beings find relief. May all beings share this merit that we have thus acquired for the acquisition of all kinds of happiness. May beings inhabiting space and earth, devas and nagas of mighty power, share this merit of ours. May they long protect the Buddha's dispensation. Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu, sadhu. See you when I see you guys. Bye-bye.