CHAPTER VI
THE DOCTRINE OF NO-SOUL:
ANATTA
What in generally is
suggested by Soul, Self, Ego, or to use the Sanskrit
expression Ātman, is that in man there is a
permanent, everlasting and absolute entity, which is the
unchanging substance behind the changing phenomenal world.
According to some religions, each individual has such a
separate soul which is created by God, and which, finally
after death, lives eternally either in hell or heaven, its
destiny depending on the judgment of its creator. According
to others, it goes through many lives till it is completely
purified and becomes finally united with God or Brahman,
Universal Soul or Ātman, from which it originally
emanated. This soul or self in man is the thinker of
thoughts, feeler of sensations, and receiver of rewards and
punishments for all its actions good and bad. Such a
conception is called the idea of self.
Buddhism
stands unique in the history of human thought in denying the
existence of such a Soul, Self, or Ātman. According
to the teaching of the Buddha, the idea of self is an
imaginary, false belief which has no corresponding reality,
and it produces harmful thoughts of ‘me’ and ‘mine’, selfish
desire, craving, attachment, hatred, ill-will, conceit,
pride, egoism, and other defilements, impurities and
problems. It is the source of all the troubles in the world
from personal conflicts to wars between nations. In short,
to this false view can be traced all the evil in the world.
Two ideas are
psychologically deep-rooted in man; self-protection and
self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God,
on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and
security, just as a child depends on its parent. For
self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal
Soul or Ātman, which will live eternally. In his
ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two
things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply
and fanatically.
The Buddha’s
teaching does not support this ignorance, weakness, fear,
and desire, but aims at making man enlightened by removing
and destroying them, striking at their very root. According
to Buddhism, our ideas of God and Soul are false and empty.
Though highly developed as theories, they are all the same
extremely subtle mental projections, garbed in an intricate
metaphysical and philosophical phraseology. These ideas are
so deep-rooted in man, and so near and dear to him, that he
does not wish to hear, nor does he want to understand, any
teaching against them.
The Buddha
knew this quite well. In fact, he said that his teaching was
‘against the current’ (patisotagāmi), against man’s
selfish desire. Just four weeks after his Enlightenment,
seated under a banyan tree, he thought to himself; ‘I have
realized this Truth which is deep, difficult to understand…
comprehensible only by the wise… Men who are overpowered by
passions and surrounded by a mass of darkness cannot see
this Truth, which is against the current, which is lofty,
deep, subtle and hard to comprehend.’
With these
thoughts in his mind, the Buddha hesitated for a moment,
whether it would not be in vain if he tried to explain to
the world the Truth he had just realized. Then he compared
the world to a lotus pond: In a lotus pond there are some
lotuses still under water; there are others which have risen
only up to the water level; there are still others which
stand above water and are untouched by it. In the same way
in this world, there are men at different levels of
development. Some would understand the Truth. So the Buddha
decided to teach it.
The doctrine
of Anatta or No-Soul is the natural result of, or the
corollary to, the analysis of the Five Aggregates and the
teaching of Conditioned Genesis (Paticca-samuppāda).
We have seen
earlier, in the discussion of the First Noble Truth (Dukkha),
that what we call a being or an individual is composed of
the Five Aggregates, and that when these are analysed and
examined, there is nothing behind them which can be taken as
‘I’, Ātman, or Self, or any unchanging abiding
substance. That is the analytical method. The same result is
arrived at through the doctrine of Conditioned Genesis which
is the synthetical method, an according to this nothing in
the world is absolute. Everything is conditioned, relative,
and interdependent. This is the Buddhist theory of
relativity.
Before we go
into the question of Anatta proper, it is useful to
have a brief idea of the Conditioned Genesis. The principle
of this doctrine is given in a short formula of four lines:
When this is,
that is (Imasmim sati idam hoti);
This arising,
that arises (Imassuppādā idam uppajjati);
When this is
not, that is not (Imasmim asati idam na hoti);
This ceasing,
that ceases (Imassa nirodhā idam nirujjhati).
On this
principle of conditionality, relativity and interdependence,
the whole existence and continuity of life and its cessation
are explained in a detailed formula which is called
Paticca-samuppāda ‘Conditioned Genesis’, consisting of
twelve factors:
1.
Through ignorance
are conditioned volitional actions or karma-formations (Avijjāpaccayā
samkhārā).
2.
Through volitional
actions is conditioned consciousness (Samkhārapaccayā
viňňānam).
3.
Through
consciousness are conditioned mental and physical phenomena
(Viňňānapaccayā nāmarūpam).
4.
Through mental and
physical phenomena are conditioned the six faculties (i.e.,
five physical sense-organs and mind) (Nāmarūpapaccayā
salāyatanam).
5.
Through the six
faculties is conditioned (sensorial and mental) contact (Salāyatanapaccayā
phasso).
6.
Through (sensorial
and mental) contact is conditioned sensation (Phassapaccayā
vedanā).
7.
Through sensation
is conditioned desire, ‘thirst’ (Vedanāpaccayā tanhā).
8.
Through desire
(‘thirst’) is conditioned clinging (Tanhāpaccayā upādānam).
9.
Through clinging
is conditioned the process of becoming (Upādānapaccayā
bhavo).
10.
Through the
process of becoming is conditioned birth (Bhavapaccayā
jāti).
11.
Through birth are
conditioned (12) decay, death, lamentation, pain, etc. (Jātipaccayā
jarāmaranam…).
This is how
life arises, exists and continues. If we take this formula
in reverse order, we come to the cessation of the process:
Through the complete cessation of ignorance, volitional
activities or karma-formations cease; through the cessation
of volitional activities, consciousness ceases; … through
the cessation of birth, decay, death, sorrow, etc., cease.
It should be
remembered that each of these factors is conditioned (paticcasamuppanna)
as well as conditioning (paticcasamuppāda).
Therefore they are all relative, interdependent and
interconnected, and nothing is absolute or independent;
hence no first cause is accepted by Buddhism as we have seen
earlier.
Conditioned Genesis should be considered as a circle, and
not as a chain.
The question
of Free Will has occupied an important place in Western
thought and philosophy. But according to Conditioned
Genesis, this question does not and cannot arise in Buddhist
philosophy. If the whole of existence is relative,
conditioned and interdependent, how can will alone be free?
Will which is included in the fourth Aggregate (samkhārakkhandha),
like any other thought, is conditioned (paticca-samuppanna).
So-called ‘freedom’ itself in this world is not absolutely
free. That too is conditioned and relative. There is, of
course, such a conditioned and relative ‘Free Will’, but not
unconditioned and absolute. There can be nothing absolutely
free in this world, physical or mental, as everything is
conditioned and relative. If Free Will implies a will
independent of conditions, independent of cause and effect,
such a thing does not exist. How can a will, or anything for
that matter, arise without conditions, away from cause and
effect, when the whole of life, the whole of existence, is
conditioned and relative? Here again, the idea of Free Will
is basically connected with the ideas of God, Soul, justice,
reward and punishment. Not only so-called free will is not
free, but even the very idea of Free Will is not free from
conditions.
According to
the doctrine of Conditioned Genesis, as well as according to
the analysis of being into Five Aggregates, the idea of an
abiding, immortal substance in man or outside, whether it is
called Ātman, ‘I’, Soul, Self, or Ego, is considered
only a false belief, a mental projection. This is the
Buddhist doctrine of Anatta, No-Soul or No-Self.
In order to
avoid a confusion it should be mentioned here that there are
two kinds of truths: conventional truth (sammuti-sacca,
Skt. Samvrti-satya) and ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca,
Skt. Paramārtha-satya).
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 convention of the world. But the ultimate
truth is that there is no ‘I’ or ‘being’ in reality. As the
Mahāyāna-sūtrālankāra says: ‘A person (pudgala)
should be mentioned as existing only in designation (prajňapti)
(i.e., conventionally there is a being), but not in reality
(or substance dravya)’.
‘The negation
of an imperishable Ātman 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,
quite contrary to the spirit of Buddhism. These scholars
respect, admire, and venerate the Buddha and his teaching.
They look up to Buddhism. But they cannot imagine that the
Buddha, whom they consider the most clear and profound
thinker, could have denied the existence of an Ātman
or Self which they need so much. They unconsciously seek the
support of the Buddha for this need for eternal existence-of
course not in a petty individual self with small s, but in
the big Self with a capital S.
It is better
to say frankly that one believes in an Ātman or or
Self. Or one may even say that the Buddha was totally wrong
in denying the existence of an Ātman. But certainly
it will not do for any one to try to introduce into Buddhism
an idea which the Buddha never accepted, as far as we can
see from the extant original texts.
Religions
which believe in God and Soul make no secret of these two
ideas; on the contrary, they proclaim them, constantly and
repeatedly, in the eloquent terms. If the Buddha had
accepted these two ideas, so important in all religions, he
certainly would have declared them publicly, as he had
spoken about other things, and would not have left them
hidden to be discovered only 25 centuries after his death.
People become
nervous at the idea that through the Buddha’s teaching of
Anatta, the self they imagine they have is going to be
destroyed. 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 Ātman, I shall
be that after death, permanent, abiding, ever-lasting,
unchanging, and I shall exists as such for eternity”. He
hears the Tathāgata or a disciple of his, preaching the
doctrine aiming at the complete destruction of all
speculative views… aiming at the extinction of “thirst”,
aiming at detachment, cessation, Nirvāna. Then than man
thinks: “I will be annihilated, I will be destroyed, I will
be no more.” So he mourns, worries himself, laments, weeps,
beating his breast, and becomes bewildered. Thus, O bhikkhu,
there is a case where one is tormented when something
permanent within oneself is not found.’
Elsewhere the
Buddha says: ‘O bhikkhus, this idea that I may not be, I may
not have, is frightening to the uninstructed world-ling.’
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 it self. But he does not say that
there is no self at all in man or anywhere else, apart from
these aggregates.
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 that there was anything more than these Five Aggregates
in a being.
The second
reasons is that the Buddha denied categorically, in
unequivocal terms, in more than one place, the existence of
Ātman, Soul, Self, or Ego within man or without, or
anywhere else in the universe. Let us take some examples.
In the
Dhammapada there are three verses extremely important
and essential in the Buddha’s teaching. They are nos. 5, 6
and 7 of chapter XX (or verses
277, 278, 279).
The first two
verses say:
‘All
conditioned things are impermanent’ (Sabbe SAMKHĀRĀ
aniccā), and ‘All conditioned things are dukkha’
(Sabbe SAMKHĀRĀ dukkhā).
The third
verse says:
‘All
dhammas are without self’ (Sabbe SAMKHĀRĀ anattā).
Here it
should be carefully observed that in the first two verses
the word samkhārā ‘conditioned things’ is used. But
in its place in the third verse the word dhammā is
used. Why didn’t the third verse use the word samkhārā
‘conditioned things’ as the previous two verses, and why
did it use the term dhammā instead? Here lies the
crux of the whole matter.
The term
samkhāra
denotes the Five Aggregates, all conditioned,
interdependent, relative things and states, both physical
and mental. If the third verse said: ‘All samkhārā (conditioned
things) are without self’, then one might think that,
although conditioned things are without self, yet there may
be a Self outside conditioned things, outside the Five
Aggregates. It is in order to avoid misunderstanding that
the term dhammā is used in the third verse.
The term
dhamma is much wider than samkhārā. There is no
term in Buddhist terminology wider than dhamma. It
includes not only the conditioned things and states, but
also the non-conditioned, the Absolute, Nirvāna. 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 quite clear that,
according to this statement: ‘All dhammas are without
Self’, there is no Self, no Ātman, not only in the
Five Aggregates, but nowhere else too outside them or apart
from them.
This means,
according to the Theravāda teaching, that there is no self
either in the individual (puggala) or in dhammas.
The Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophy maintains exactly the same
position, without the slightest difference, on this point,
putting emphasis on dharma-nairātmya.
In the
Alagaddūpama-sutta of the Majjhima-nikāya,
addressing his disciples, the Buddha said: ‘O bhikkhus,
accept a soul-theory (Attavāda) in the acceptance of
which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering,
distress and tribulation. But, do you see, O bhikkhus, such
a soul-theory in the acceptance of which there would not
arise grief, , lamentation, suffering, distress and
tribulation?’
‘Certainly
not, Sir.’
‘Good, O
bhikkhus. I, too, O bhikkhus, do not see 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 which the Buddha had accepted, he would
certainly have explained it here, because he asked the
bhikkhus to accept 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 pertaining to self can truly
and really be found, this speculative view: “The universe is
that Ātman (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 Ātman, or Soul, or
Self, is nowhere to be found in reality, and it is foolish
to believe that there is such a thing.
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 Āttā hi attano nātho
from the Dhammapada (XII, 4, or verse 160), which
is 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. Āttā here does not
mean self in the sense of soul. In Pali the word āttā
is generally used as a reflexive or indefinite pronoun,
except in a few cases where it specifically and
philosophically refers to the 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, the
word nātho does not mean ‘lord’, but ‘refuge’,
‘support’, ‘help’, ‘protection’.
Therefore,
Attā hi attano nātho really mean ‘One is one’s own
refuge’ or ‘One is one’s own help’ or ‘support’. It has
nothing to do with any metaphysical soul or self. It simple
means that you have to rely on yourself, and not on others.
Another
example of the attempt to introduce idea of self into the
Buddha’s teaching is in the well-known words Attidipā
viharatha, attasaranā anaňňasaranā, which are taken out
of context in the Mahāparinibbāna-sutta.
This
phrase literally means: ‘Dwell making yourselves your island
(support), making yourselves your refuge, and not anyone
else as your refuge.’
We cannot
understand the full meaning and significance of the advice
of the Buddha to Ānanda, unless we take into consideration
the background and the 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, Parinivāna. At
this time he was eighty years old, and was suffering from a
very serious illness, almost dying (māranantika). 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 one day in the
shade outside his residence. Ānanda, 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 that 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: ‘Ānanda, what does the
Order of the Sangha expect from me? I have taught the
Dhamma (Truth) without making any distinction as
exoteric and esoteric. With regard to the truth, the
Tathāgata has nothing like the closed fist of the teacher (ācariya-mutthi).
Surely, Ānanda, if there is anyone who thinks that he
will lead the Sangha, and that the Sangha should depend on
him, let him set down his instructions. But the Tathāgata
has no such idea. Why should he then leave instructions
concerning the Shangha? I am now old, Ānanda, eighty years
old. As a worn-out cart has to be kept going by repairs, so,
it seems to me, the body of the Tathāgata can only be kept
going by repairs. Therefore, Ānanda, dwell making
yourselves your island (support), making yourselves, not
anyone else, your refuge; making the Dhamma your island
(support), the Dhamma your refuge, nothing else your refuge,
What the Buddha wanted to convey to Ānanda 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 that they
should depend on themselves, and on Dhamma he taught,
and not on anyone else, or on anything else. Here the
question of a metaphysical Ātman, or Self, is quite
beside the point.
Further, The
Buddha explained to Ānanda how one could be one’s own island
or refuge, how one could make the Dhamma one’s own
island or refuge: through the cultivation of mindfulness or
awareness of the body, sensations, mind and mind-objects
(the four Satipatthānas).
There is no talk at all here about an Ātman or Self.
Another
reference, oft-quoted, is used by those who try to find
Ātman in the Buddha’s teaching. The Buddha was once
seated under a tree in a forest on the way to Urevelā from
Benares. On that day, thirty friends all of them young
princes, went out on picnic with their young wives into the
same forest. One of the princes who was unmarried brought a
prostitute with him. While the others were amusing
themselves, she purloined some objects of value and
disappeared. In their search for her in the forest, they saw
the Buddha seated under a tree and asked him whether he had
seen a woman. He enquired what was the matter. When they
explained, the Buddha asked them: “What do you think, young
men? Which is better for you? To search after a woman, or to
search after yourselves?’
Here again it
is a simple and natural question, and there is no
justification for introducing far-fetched ideas of a
metaphysical Ātman or Self into the business. They
answered that it was better for them to search after
themselves. The Buddha then asked them to sit down and
explained the Dhamma to them. In the available
account, in the original text of what the preached to them,
not a word is mentioned about an Ātman.
Much has been
written on the subject of the Buddha’s silence when a
certain Parivrājaka (Wanderer) named Vacchagotta asked him
whether there was an Ātman or not. The story is as
follows:
Vacchagotta
comes to the Buddha and asks:
‘Venerable
Gotama, is there an Ātman?’
The Buddha is
silent.
‘The
Venerable Gotama, is there an Ātman?’
Again the Buddha is silent.
Vacchagotta
gets up and goes away.
After the
Parivrājaka had left, Ānanda asks the Buddha why he did not
answer Vacchagotta’s question. The Buddha explains his
position:
‘Ānanda, when
asked by Vacchagotta the Wanderer: “Is there a self?”, if I
had answered: “There is a self”, then, Ānanda, that would be
siding with those recluses and brāhmanas who hold the
eternalist theory (sassata-vāda).
‘And, Ānanda,
when asked by the Wanderer: “Is there no self?” if I had
answered: “There is no self”, then that would be siding with
those recluses and brāhmanas who hold the annihilationist
theory (uccheda-vāda).
‘Again,
Ānanda, when asked by Vacchagotta: “Is there a self?”, if I
had answered: “There is a self”, would that be in accordance
with my knowledge that all dhammas are without self?’
‘Surely not,
Sir.’
‘And again,
Ānanda, when asked by the Wanderer: “Is there no self?” if I
had answered: “There is no self”, then that would have been
a greater confusion to the already confused Vacchagotta.
For he would have thought: Formerly indeed I had an Ātman
(self), but now I haven’t got one.’
It should now
be quite clear why the Buddha was silent. But it will be
still clearer if we take into consideration the whole
background, and the way the Buddha treated questions and
questioners – which is altogether ignored by those who have
discussed this problem.
The Buddha
was not a computing machine giving answers to whatever
questions were put to him by another at all, without any
consideration. He was a practical teacher, full of
compassion and wisdom. He did not answer questions to show
his knowledge and intelligence, but to help the questioner
on the way to realization. He always spoke to people bearing
in mind their standard of development, their tendencies,
their mental make-up, their character, their capacity to
understand a particular question.
According to
the Buddha, there are four ways of treating questions: (I)
Some should be answered directly; (2) others should be
answered by way of analyzing them; (3) yet others should be
answered by counter-questions; (4) and lastly, there are
questions which should be put aside.
There may be
several ways putting aside a question. One is to day that a
particular question is not answered or explained, as the
Buddha had told this very same Vacchagotta on more than one
occasion, when those famous questions whether the universe
is eternal or not, etc., were put to him.
In the same way he had replied to Mālunkyaputta and others.
But he could not say the same thing with regard to the
question whether there is an Ātman (Self) or not,
because he had always discussed and explained it. He could
not say ‘there is self’, because it is contrary to his
knowledge that ‘all dhammas are without self’. Then
he did not want to say ‘there is no self’, because that
would unnecessarily, without any purpose, have confused and
disturbed poor Vacchagotta who was already confused on a
similar question, as he had himself admitted earlier.
He was not yet in a position to understand the idea of
Anatta. Therefore, to put aside this question by silence
was the wisest thing in this particular case.
We must not
forget too that the Buddha has known Vacchagotta quite well
for a long time. This was not the first occasion on which
this inquiring Wanderer had come to see him. The wise and
compassionate Teacher gave much thought and showed great
consideration for this confused seeker. There are many
references in the Pali texts to this same Vacchagotta the
Wanderer his going round quite often to see the Buddha and
his disciples and putting the same kind of question again
and again, evidently very much worried, almost obsessed by
these problems.
The Buddha’s silence seems to have had much more effect on
Vacchagotta than any eloquent answer or discussion.
Some people
take ‘self’ to mean what is generally known as ‘mind’ or
consciousness. But the Buddha says that it is better for a
man to take his physical body as self rather than mind,
thought, or consciousness, because the former seems to be
more solid than the latter, because mind, thought or
consciousness (citta, mano, viňňāna) changes
constantly day and night even faster than the body (kāya).
It is the
vague feeling “I AM’ that creates the idea of self which has
no corresponding reality, and to see this truth is to
realize Nirvāna, which is not very easy. In the
Samyutta-nikāya
there is an enlightening conversation on this point between
a bhikkhu named Khemaka and a group of bhikkhus.
These
bhikkhus ask Khemaka whether he sees in the Five Aggregates
any self or anything pertaining to a self. Khemaka replies
‘No”. Then the bhikkhus say that, if so, he should be an
Arahant free from all impurities. But Khemaka confesses that
through he does not find in the Five Aggregates a self, or
anything pertaining to a self, ‘I am not an Arahant free
from all impurities. O friends, with regard to the Five
Aggregates of Attachment, I have a feeling “I AM”, but I do
not clearly see “This is I AM”.’ Then Khemaka explains that
what he calls ‘I AM’ is neither matter, sensation,
perception, mental formations, nor consciousness, nor
anything without them. But he has he feeling ‘I AM’ with
regard to the Five Aggregates, through he could not see
clearly ‘This is I AM’.
He says it is
like the smell of a flower: it is neither the smell of the
petals, nor of the colour, nor of the pollen, but the smell
of the flower.
Khemaka
further explains that even a person who has attained the
early stages of realization still retains this feeling ‘I
AM’. But later on, when he progresses further, this feeling
of ‘I AM’ altogether disappears, just as the chemical smell
of a freshly washed cloth disappears after a time when it is
kept in a box.
This
discussion was so useful and enlightening to them that at
the end of it, the text says, all of them, including Khemaka
himself, became Arahants free from all impurities, this
finally getting rid of ‘I AM’.
According to
the Buddha’s teaching, it is as wrong to hold the opinion ‘I
have no self’ (which is the annihilationist theory) as to
hold the opinion ‘I have self’ (which is the eternalist
theory), because both are fetters, both arising out of the
false idea ‘I AM’. The correct position with regard to the
question of Anatta is not to take hold of any
opinions or views, but to see things objectively as they are
without mental projections, to see that what we call ‘I’, or
‘being’, is only a combination of physical and mental
aggregates, which are working together interdependently in a
flux of momentary change within the law of cause and effect,
and that there is nothing permanent, everlasting, unchanging
and eternal in the whole of existence.
Here
naturally a question arises: If there is no Ātman or
Self, who gets the results of karma (actions)? No one can
answer this question better than the Buddha himself. When
this question was raised by a bhikkhu the Buddha said: ‘I
have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality
everywhere in all things.’
The Buddha’s
teaching on Anatta, No-Soul, or No-Self, should not
be considered as negative or annihilistic. Like Nirvāna, it
is Truth, Reality; and Reality cannot be negative. It is the
false belief in a non-existing imaginary self that is
negative. The teaching on Anatta dispels the darkness
of false beliefs, and produces the light of wisdom. It is
not negative: as Asanga very aptly says: ‘There is the fact
of No-selfness’ (nairātmyāstitā).
