[PDF] Against No-A¯ tman Theories of Anatta¯

9026_1Against_No_Atman_Anatta,Miri,AP,2002.pdf

AsianPhilosophy,Vol.12,No.1,2002

AgainstNo-A¯tmanTheoriesofAnatta¯

MIRIALBAHARI

ABSTRACTSupposeweweretorandomlypickoutabookonBuddhismorEasternPhiloso- phyandturntothesectionon'no-self"(anatta¯).Onthiscentralteaching,wewouldmost likelylearnthattheBuddharejectedtheUpanis½adicnotionofSelf(A¯tman),maintainingthat apersonisnomorethanabundleofimpermanent,conditionedpsycho-physicalaggregates (khandhas).TherejectionofA ¯ tmanisseenbymanytoseparatethemetaphysically'extrava- gant"claimsofHinduismfromtheausteretenetsofBuddhism.Thestatusquohasnot, however,goneunchallenged.Ishalljoinforcesagainstthisperniciousview,integratingsome recentcontributionsintoasustained,two-prongedargumentagainstno-A

¯tmantheoriesof

anatta¯.Attheenditshallbesuggested,inlinewithThanissaroBhikkhu,thatanatta¯isbest understoodasapracticalstrategyratherthanasametaphysicaldoctrine.

Introduction

Thedoctrineof'no-self"(anatta¯)isdeemedcentraltoBuddhism.However,theexact meaningofanatta¯isacomplex,controversialmatter.Themostpopularreadingscentre around'no-A¯tman"theoriesof anatta¯,whichhavepositiveandnegativecounterparts. The'negativedoctrineofanatta¯",asIshallcallit,takestheBuddhatohaverejectedall Upanis½adicnotionsofA¯tman;thesenotionsdepictingan'eternal",'conscious",'blissful" elementinhumannaturethatisusuallycoveredoverbyillusion(ma¯ya¯)butfully realisedinEnlightenment(Moks½a)tobeidenticalwithUltimateReality(Brahman). TherejectionofA¯tmanisseenaspivotalinwhatistaken,byitsadvocates,tobea metaphysicalturningpointfromHinduismtoBuddhism,thelatterbeingregardedas farless'extravagant"thantheformer.ThisleadsnaturallytowhatIshallrefertoasthe 'positivedoctrineofanatta¯".ThepositivedoctrineascribestotheBuddhathemeta- physicallyausterepositionthataperson,orwhatwecommonlycallthe'self",isnothing overandaboveanimpermanent?uxofpsycho-physical,causuallyconditionedaggre- gates,knownaskhandhas:physicalform,feelings,perceptions,mentalformations,and sixtypesofconsciousness(correspondingto?vesensesandmind). Thisdualinterpretationofanatta¯,astwosidesofano-A¯tmancoin,isnot,however, thesolecurrency.Thereis another,lesspopular,schoolofthoughtwhichsuggeststhat theBuddhadidnotrejectallUpanis½adicnotionsofA¯tman.ChristianLindtnerhas recentlyarguedthatBuddhismshouldbeseenas'reformedBrahmanism"whileKarel WernerhassuggestedthatmodernscholarshavemisappropriatednotionsofA¯tman whenformulatingtheirtheoriesofanatta¯[1].Thescholar-monkThanissaroBhikkhu holdsthatanatta¯ shouldberegardedlessasametaphysicaldoctrineandmoreasa practicalstrategyfordisidentifyingwithelementsofconditionedexistence[2].Butso ingrainedareno-A¯tmanmodesofthought,thatevensuchcanonicallywell-grounded accountsasthese,strikethereaderasisolatedexceptionstothestatusquo,tobe ISSN0955-2367print/ISSN1469-2961online/02/010005-16Ó2002Taylor&FrancisLtd

DOI:10.1080/09552360220142225

6MiriAlbahari

subsequentlyoverlookedbythelikesofPrasad[3].Ihopetounderscoretheimport- anceofthesecontributionsbydevelopingsomeoftheirpoints,amongstothers,intoa sustainedargumentagainstno-A¯tmantheoriesofanatta¯. Ishallarguethatthenegativedoctrineofanatta¯isboughtattheexpenseofgrossly misrepresentingtheUpanis½adicnotionofA¯tman;inparticular,thatexpoundedby S´anÇkara.MethodologicaldifferencesbetweenBuddhismand(Advaita)Veda¯ntamaybe overplayedtothepointofbeingdistortedintothefamiliarmetaphysicaldifferences.I shallthenarguethatthepositivedoctrineofanatta¯,bycontrast,commitsasinof omission:itunderplaysthesimilaritiesbetweenBuddhismandVeda¯nta,tothepoint wheretheyareignored.Indoingso,un?llablegapsareleftinanyexplanationofhow, giventhatthe?veconditionedkhandhasexhausthumanreality,itispossibletoattain Nibba¯na.TheseproblemsarenotencounteredbyThanissaro"spragmaticreadingof anatta¯,whichalsositsmoreeasilywiththeBuddha"smainemphasisofteaching-to knowandescapefromsuffering.Onceno-A¯tmandoctrinesofanatta¯arerejected,it becomesdif?cultto?ndgroundsuponwhichtodrawasystematicmetaphysical divisionbetweenBuddhismandHinduism.Thedifferencemaybeonlyinemphasis andmethod.

TheNegativeDoctrineofAnatta¯

IntheefforttosetBuddhismapartfromitsforerunners,DavidKalupahanawrites: ...thebasicself-assertivetendencysurvived[amongtheUpanis½adicteachers]; hencetheemphasisonbeliefintheimmortalityofthesoul....The Upanis½adictheoryof'self"[a¯tman]isintended,nodoubt,tosatisfythis deep-seatedcravingonthepartofmanforself-preservation.Theacceptance ofthiseternalandimmutable'self"enabledtheUpanis½adicthinkerstoexplain withoutmuchdif?cultymanyproblemssuchasrebirth,continuity,andmoral responsibility.ButfortheBuddhaatheorythat[is]...merely...plausible (bhabbaru¯pa)isnottrueinitself....Truthforhimwaswhataccordswithfacts (yatha¯bhu¯ta),notthatwhichcateredtoone"slikes.Hencehedidnotwantto contributetoatheorywhichmerelycaterstotheinstinctsoftheindividual [4].

Inasimilarvein,Prasadwrites:

Buddhismingeneralisknownforitssevereoppositiontothebeliefinany substancecalledsoulastheagentofallsortsofcognitiveandpsychological acts....TheS´am½karites,theCartesian'Cogito"...haveinmoderntime furtherstrengthenedthebeliefinthissubstantialsoul.TheBuddhistsreduce thispositedsoul...to'I-ing"(aham½ka¯ra)...and'mine-ing"(mamaka¯ra), causallyconditioned(pratõ¯tyasamutpanna)...butseparateactsofconscious- ness?owinginquicksuccession(sam½ta¯na)....AccordingtoBuddhism,this beliefinasoulis...disposition-loadedandafalsesecurity-givingdevice[5]. Thespirit(ifnotdetail)ofthisinterpretation?ndsitswayintoarecentintroductory textonEasternthought: TheOrthodoxschoolsofHinduphilosophyareallconcernedwiththenature oftheselfandwiththenotionthatA¯tmanisBrahman.TheBuddhatakesa completelydifferentline.Buddhismassertsthatthereisnouniqueindividual self[6].

AgainstNo-A¯tmanTheoriesofAnatta¯7

A¯tmanisnota'SubstantialSoul"

TheaboveinterpretationsdepicttheUpanis½adicnotionofA¯tmanasbeing(a)an eternalandimmutablesoulorrescogitanswhichisdoerofthedeeds,thinkerofthe thoughts,etc.,which(b)forKalupahanaandPrasadismotivatedbywishfulthinking orthedesireforself-preservation,ratherthanaquestforthetruth. LetitbesaidstraightawaythatatthetimeoftheBuddha,whohadencounteredonly non-enlightenedspiritualseekers,theUpanis½adicnotionofA¯tmanmaywellhavebeen expoundedbythepopulaceintheaboveway,andfortheabovereasons[7].Tothis day,theword'A¯tman"continuestobetranslatedas'soul",withtheaboveconnotations intow.However,thisdoesnotgiveonelicencetoportraythewholeoftheUpanis½adic traditioninthislight.IfSankara"sCrestJewelofDiscrimination,orEliotDeutsch"s philosophicalreconstructionofAdvaitaVeda¯nta,areanythingtogoby,wewillseethat (a)and(b)areatdirectvariancewiththeheartofVeda¯nta[8].Letusdealwitheach inturn,beforeaddressingthegeneralissueofhow(a)-and(b)-typeviewscometobe held. (a)AccordingtoKarelWerner'NoIndianschoolofthoughthaseverregardedthe humansoulorthecarrierofhumanpersonalidentityasapermanentsubstance".He holdsthatearlyBuddhistthinkers,aswellasmodernscholars,cametomisleadingly equateA¯tman(identicalwithBrahman)withthenotionofasubstantialindividualsoul orpersonality.Thiswouldimplythatanyanatta¯doctrinebasedonrejectingsucha 'soul"ismisdirected,sincethe'soul"wasneverpositedinthe?rstplace[9]. Werner"scontention-atleastwithrespecttoAdvaitaVeda¯nta-isstronglysup- portedbyS´anÇkara"sconstrualofA¯tman.ThattheA¯tmanisnottobeunderstoodasa Cartesianthinkingsubstance,oreternalsoul,orindividualagentofcognitiveacts,is statedplainlyinTheCrestJewelofDiscrimination: TheA¯tmanisthewitness-beyondallattributes,beyondaction.Itcanbe directlyrealisedaspureconsciousnessandin?nitebliss.Itsappearanceasan individualsouliscausedbythedelusionofourunderstanding,andhasno reality....Weseethatapreviousstateofnon-existencemaycometoanend, eventhoughitisbeginningless.Itisthesamewiththesemblanceofan individualself.Thissemblanceisduetoafalseidenti?cationoftheA¯tman withtheintellectandtheothercoverings....Themind,togetherwiththe organsofperception,formsthe'mentalcovering".Itcausesthesenseof'I"and 'mine"[10]. Anyallusionsthatonemayhave,tobeinginessenceasoulorrescogitansareregarded byS´anÇkaratobetheworkofma¯ya¯,thatgrandillusionbywhichA¯tmanisconfusedinto identifyingwithmentalandphysicalattributes.Throughignorance(avidya¯),the in?niteandindescribablenatureofA¯tmanissuperimposed(adhya¯sa)uponwhatis ?niteanddescribable(thephysicalandmentalcoveringsofbodyandintellect).The ensuingsenseofindividualself(jõ¯va)isahybridofAppearanceandReality;thesense ofimmutabilityandwitness-consciousnessissuingfromA¯tman;thesenseofseparation fromtheworld-manifestedinegoistictendenciestowards'I-the-agent"and'mine"- arisingfromtheillusorycoveringsofma¯ya¯[11].Thiscreatestheimpressionofa substantial'I-the-agent"continuingoninde?nitelybyitsownlight,whichiswhat advocatesof(a)seemtomeanby'soul"or'self"-butitisanimpressionthatS´anÇkara advocatesescapingfrom,notperpetuating: ...theego-senseisdeep-rootedandpowerful,forithasexistedfrom beginninglesstime.Itcreatestheimpressionthat'Iamtheactor,Iam

8MiriAlbahari

hewhoexperiences".Thisimpressioncausesourbondagetorebirthand death.Itcanberemovedonlybytheearnestefforttoliveconstantlyinunion withBrahman.Thesagesde?neliberationasfreedomfromallsuchimpres- sions,andhencethecravingswhicharecausedbythem[12]. Theadvocatesof(a)thusequateA¯tmanwiththeindividualselforjõ¯va,implying, furthermore,thatthisviewisheldbyallHinduschoolsofthought-soastoallowan easycontrastwithBuddhism.Indoingso,however,theycommittheclassic'strawman" fallacy.ThereisatleastonemajorschoolofHinduthoughtthatdoesnotsubscribeto the'soul"theoryofA¯tman:AdvaitaVeda¯nta. (b)ThatS´anÇkarawasnotcateringtoinstinctsofself-preservationisplainfromthe quotationsabove,whichshowthatherejectedtheultimacyofasoulbydenouncingall tendenciestowards'I-the-actor"and'mine".InAdvaitaVeda¯nta,anysenseofa boundedindividual'I",withitsegoistictrappings(suchascravingforsenseobjects)is tobethoroughlyabandoned-justasintheBuddhisttradition.Throughmistaken identi?cationwithmentalandphysicalcoverings,saysS´anÇkara: ...man,whoisA¯tman,regardshimselfasbeingseparatefromit[A¯tman],and fromBrahman,whoistheoneA¯tmaninallcreatures[13]. Theideaof'realising"BrahmanwhoistheoneA¯tmaninallcreatures-asfarasitcan becognizedfromtheperspectiveofAppearance-couldhardlybelesscomfortingto thosewhovaluetheirindividualidentity.Uponenlightenment,allsenseofindividual identityislost,notre-af?rmed.

TheSourceofSuspicion

TherewillstillbethosewhoremainunhappywithS´anÇkara"srepeatedreferencetothe blissofA¯tman,ortoA¯tmanasthewitnessingprincipleofallexperience,nottomention frequentinjunctionsto'identify"withBrahmaninorderto'Realisethatyouarethat Beingwhichiseternalhappiness"[14].Thisiswhatafteralllikelycontributesto(a)- or(b)-typeviews:suchparallelallusionstothe'joyofNibba¯na"arecomparatively scarceintheearlyBuddhistsuttas(whichinformtheTherava¯dintradition),whilethe word'identify"alwaysappearsinprohibitorycontexts,associatedwithunwholesome (akusala)tendrilsoftheego.ItiswellknownthattheBuddhacautionedagainst 'eternalism"asapositiontobeavoided.Inshort,thepositive,celebratory,'forever" moodoftheUpanis½adicteachingsseemstoclashwiththemoreconservativelystyled messageoftheBuddha,whichurgesonetoabandonanythingliabletocauseattach- ment(hencesuffering),includingideasabouttheeternityandblissofA¯tman.Forthose alreadycommittedtothepositivedoctrineofanatta¯,S´anÇkara"sallusiontoourreal natureasbeingofeternalhappinessandpeacewillespeciallyappeartomaska reluctancetofaceuptocoldhardfactsofthetruth;thatwearenothingbutsuffering, perishablekhandhas. Wewillfornowputasideconcernsstemmingfromthepositivedoctrineofanatta¯, sinceargumentsforitsnegativecounterpart,whichmotivatethepositivedoctrine,are currentlybeingconsidered:itwillnotdotopre-judgetheissue.Anyremaining concernswillbeaddressedinalatersection.Itwillnowbearguedthatwhenthe contextofS´anÇkara"steachingsisbetterunderstood,thegroundsforpositingameta- physicalratherthanamethodologicaldividebetweenAdvaitaVeda¯ntaandBuddhism, becomeyetshakier.

AgainstNo-A¯tmanTheoriesofAnatta¯9

Not'Eternalism"

Letus?rstconsiderthechargeof'eternalism".ItwassuggestedearlierthattheBuddha soughttodispelUpanis½adicconceptsofA¯tmanbeingendorsedbyunenlightened seekersathistime:thesewouldhaveincluded,attheveryleast,conceptsthatdenoted theliteralexistenceofaneternalsoul-likeA¯tman.WehaveseenevidencethatS´anÇkara alsorejectedsoul-theoriesofA¯tman,butS´anÇkarawentfurtherthanthis,maintaining thattheA¯tmanis'"neithergrossnorsubtle,neithershortnortall",thatitis self-existent,freeasthesky,[andaboveall]beyondthegraspofthought"[15].Deutsch pointstoanotherpassagebyS´anÇkara: Ba¯s½kaliaskedBa¯hvathreetimesaboutthenatureofBrahman:thelatter remainedsilentallthetime,but?nallyreplied:Iteachyou,butyouunder- standnot:silenceistheA¯tman. '...[W]herepuresilencereigns",summarisesDeutsch,'allnamesarerejected"[16]. S´anÇkarataughtthatpureA¯tman,identicaltoBrahman,transcendsanymultiplicitythat followsfromthesubject/objectdistinction,forA¯tmanistheunitythatunderliesthat distinction.TherealnatureofA¯tmanisthusbeyondAppearanceandallitentails, includingnamesandconcepts,whichpre-supposeaseparate,dividedreality.Names andconceptsthatareattributedtoA¯tmanorBrahman('eternal",'bliss",'Self" 'consciousness")withtheirassociatedmentalimages,areuponenlightenmenttobe superseded-inDeutsch"sterms,axio-noetically'subrated"-throughdirectrealisation ofthesupremenon-dualIdentitybetweenA¯tmanandBrahman[17].BothLindtner andWerner?ndsupportforthisintheBr½hada¯ran½yakaUpanis½ad,Lindtnerconcluding that'a¯tmanisnot"something"thatcanbeconceivedanddescribed,butitcertainlycan be"seeninitself""[18].Wernerwrites:'Thenatureofa¯tman/brahmanisproclaimedto be'ungraspable"(agrhya)onthephenomenallevel,andnothingcanbepredicated aboutit(netineti;BU3,9,26)"[19].PureA¯tmancanthusbeexperienced,butnot conceptualised. Oncethissubtlebutcrucialpointisacknowledged,itbecomesplainthatincontext oftheAdvaitictradition,thenotionofA¯tman,withitsIdentitytoBrahman,isnotto beliterallyunderstoodasabrandofeternalism.A¯tmanisultimatelybeyondall'isms". 'Isms"belongtotheperspectiveofAppearance,signifyingconceptsandviewsatthe mercyofanalyticdebate.TheBuddhafamouslysoughttosteerhisdisciplesawayfrom a'fetterofviews"concerningtheself,whichincludedmisguided'eternalist"notionsof A¯tman-ironically,ofthesortbeingperpetuatedtoday[20].Itisrarelycountenanced bytheseBuddhistscholarsthatS´anÇkara,inkeepingwithhisreadingoftheUpanis½ads andhisownexperienceoftheUltimate(forhewaswidelyregardedasEnlightened) wouldhavealsorejected'eternalism". GiventhatA¯tmancannotbeliterallydescribed,norproperlyimaginedby non-enlightenedspiritualseekers,wemaywonderwhyS´anÇkarausedthewordsthathe did-andwithsuchenthusiasm.Deutschhassuggested,inlinewithS´anÇkara,thatthey functionpragmaticallytoorientthemindtowardstheReal,by'af?rmingessential qualitiesthatarereallyonlydenialsoftheiropposites".Tosaythat'Brahmaniseternal" negatestheideathatBrahmanisnon-eternal;tosaythat'Brahmanisbliss"negatesthe qualityofnon-bliss,andsoon.ThuswithoutlimitingA¯tmanorBrahmanbypositive description,the'vianegativa"strategyusessolidtermsofthefamiliartohelppropelthe mindtounfamiliarspace[21].

10MiriAlbahari

'IdentifywithBrahman":APracticalStrategy? Aswellasthis,IwouldsuggestthatthepositivetermsforA¯tmanhaveamore af?rmativefunction,whichshedslightuponthecontextinwhichS´anÇkaraurgedseekers to'identifywithBrahman".WhilethetermsdonotdepictA¯tmaninitspure,uncovered form,theydodepictA¯tmanasconceivedandexperiencedthroughthelighter,subrat- ablesheathsofma¯ya¯(sattva),asbrightnessofthesunisperceivedthroughacovering ofcloud(toborrowS´anÇkara"simagery).Thereportedexperiencesincludespiritualjoy, aluminousandimmutablesenseof'witness-consciousness"(fromwhichspringsthe ideaofeternalism),anddiscerningwisdomthatcomeswithseeingthrough,andthus detachingfrom,thelayeringsofma¯ya¯.S´anÇkara"sinjunctionto'identifywithBrahman", canthusbeviewedasaninvitationtofocusupon,andtherebyuncoverthoseintrinsic elementsofournaturethatareclosertoA¯tman,evenwhilecloudedintoseparate 'categories".Theideaisthatthemorethesesattvicqualitiesarecultivated,through beingkeptthefocusofattention,thelighterthecoveringsofma¯ya¯willbecome. Eventually,likesunbreakingthroughclouds,ma¯ya¯(sattva)willdisappearaltogether, revealinganin?niteradiancethatwasthereallalong.Ifthereisindeedanultimate sourcetothesesattvicqualities(anassumptionthatwillbeaddressedinalatersection) thenitbecomesclearthatS´anÇkara"sinstructionto'identifywithBrahman"ismotivated notbywishfulthinkingoregoistictendencies,butbyaquestforthetruth-torealise thatwhichwealreadyare.Whatcanbequestionediswhetherhismethod,to'focuson thelight"isalwayseffective;andthisiswhatIbelievetheBuddha,inthecontextofhis time,waschallenging. ThereareperilsassociatedwiththeAdvaiticmethod:justasabrightcloudcanbe mistakenforthesun,itispossible,withoutproperguidance,tobecomespiritually stagnant;confusingathoughtorconceptaboutA¯tmanforadirectexperienceofA¯tman; oradirectexperienceofma¯ya¯-?lteredA¯tmanwithanexperienceofpureA¯tman. ThereisadangerofveeringoffthespiritualPathaltogether,becominglostina'jungle" ofthoughtaboutA¯tman,whichisnosubstitutefordirectexperience.Lindtnerhas notedthattheword'Brahman"wasmuchabusedinthedaysoftheBuddha[22]. Perhapsitwastocautionagainstthis,andthesufferingitcouldgenerate,thatthe Buddhachosetoshakeoffthedust,andspeakofidenti?cationassomethingtobe avoided.ItisnotablethatwhenevertheBuddhadidwarnagainstidenti?cation,itwas invariablyinconnectionwiththeconditionedkhandhas-includingattachmentto mentalformations(views)depictingconceptsofA¯tmanandBrahman.Asweshallsee, S´anÇkara"sgoalwasalsotoultimatelydis-identifywithelementsofconditionedexistence -althoughnotionsofA¯tmanwereemployedalongtheway.Tomyknowledge,thereare nosuttaswhichsuggestthattheBuddhacautionedagainsttheultimateIdentityof one"sunconditionedA¯tmanwithBrahman:onthis,andothermetaphysicalmatters,he remainedsilent[23].Thisleaveslittlecanonicalevidenceforametaphysicaldisagree- mentabouttheultimateimplicationsof'identifyingwithBrahman".Thedifferencemay beonlystrategic. AUltimateSimilarityinReportedGoalsofAdvaitaVedantaandBuddhism S´anÇkararegardedaf?rmationsaboutA¯tmanandBrahmanashelpingratherthan hinderingthemindalongitsPath;inthisstrategicwayatleast,differingfromthetype ofPathsetoutbytheBuddha.ButitissometimesoverlookedthatS´anÇkara"sstrategy wastwo-pronged.Aswellasencouragingoneto'identifywithBrahman"hewasnoless

AgainstNo-A¯tmanTheoriesofAnatta¯11

forcefulthantheBuddhainurgingseekerstoovercomeattachmenttoincreasingly subtlelayersofconditionedexistence: Stopidentifyingyourselfwiththiscorruptiblephysicalbody,bornofthe ?eshoffatherandmother.Regarditasimpure,asthoughitwereanoutcast ....Conquerthisenemy,theego.Giveitnoopportunitybylettingyour thoughtsdwelluponsense-objects.Suchthoughtsgiveitlife,aswatergives lifetoaparchedcitron-tree...sattwaisovercomewhenthepureAtman shines.Thereforebeestablishedinsattwaandstrivetodestroythisillusion [24]. ItisnosmallmatterthatS´anÇkara"sfollowingdescriptionofthegoalofspiritual progress,asultimatefreedomfromin?uencesoftheegoandthecravingitcreates, convergeswithwhattheBuddhataught: Abandon,also,theideathatyouarethedoerofactionsorthethinker ofthoughts.Thesebelongtotheego,thesubtlecovering....Ceaseto ?ndful?lmentofyourcravingsintheobjectiveworld,andyouwill stopdwellingonsense-objects.Stopdwellingonsense-objects,andyour cravingwillbedestroyed.Whenallcravinghasdisappeared,thatisliberation [25].

RejectingtheNegativeDoctrineofAnatta¯

Thenegativedoctrineofanatta¯depictstheBuddhaashavingrejectedtheUpanis½adic notionofA¯tman,inawaythatimpliesasystematicmetaphysicaldifferencebetween BuddhismandHinduism.IthasbeenarguedthatattemptsmadebyBuddhistscholars todrawthiscontrastarefoundeduponstereotypesthatmisrepresentatleastonemajor schoolofHinduthought:AdvaitaVeda¯nta.First,theUpanis½adicnotionofA¯tmanis notunderstoodbyAdvaita"schiefproponent,S´anÇkara,tobeasubstantialsoul(touted asamajorpointofcontrastwithBuddhism).LiketheBuddha,S´anÇkararejected soul-theoriesofA¯tman.Second,Sankarawasnot,ashasbeenimpliedbyvarious authors,motivatedbyself-preservation:quitetheopposite.Thequesttorealisetheone A¯tmaninallbeingsisaquesttodestroyindividualidentity.Third,S´anÇkara"snotionof A¯tmanisnotabrandof'eternalism":liketheBuddha,heheldthatno'isms",belonging toAppearance,cancaptureUltimateReality.Fourth,ifthereisanultimatesourceto thesattvicqualities,thenS´anÇkara"sinjunctionto'identifywithBrahman"isbestviewed asapracticalstrategy,motivatedbytruth-seekingratherthanbyegoistictendenciesor wishfulthinking.Fifth,thecallto'identifywithBrahman"clasheswithBuddhistsuttas inwhatappearstobemethod,notmetaphysics.WhenevertheBuddhaspokeagainst identi?cation,itwasincontextoftheconditionedkhandhas,nottheunconditioned A¯tmanbeyondnameandconcept.Sixth,and?nally,S´anÇkara,liketheBuddha,urged thattheultimategoalofspiritualprogressistoletgoofallego-drivenattachmentto layeringsofma¯ya¯,orconditionedexistence.Thisfundamentalsimilaritybetweenthe reportedspiritualgoalsofBuddhismandAdvaitaVeda¯ntacannotreasonablybe ignored-althoughithasbeenbymany. WhiletheBuddha"steachingsmightsofarappeartobemetaphysicallycompatible withtheteachingsofS´anÇkara,itremainstobeseenwhethertheyareinfactcompatible. ThispartlyhingesuponwhethertheBuddhaendorsedthepositivedoctrineofanatta¯.

12MiriAlbahari

ThePositiveDoctrineofAnatta¯

TheBuddhachosenottoteachaboutA¯tman,butcouldhisteachingshaveimplieda notionofA¯tman?Ifwetakeasourguidethefollowingpassages,whichrepresentthe dominantview,thentherearenosuchimplications: Thewholehumanpersonality,accordingtoBuddhism,isnothingmorethan theeffectivelyfunctionalpsycho-physicalorganism.Thewholeendeavourof theBuddhaandBuddhismistomakeonerealiseone"sownpersonalityand existenceintermsoftheseunenduringanddependentlyarisenfactors...[26]. Buddhistthoughtpresentsthese?veaggregatesasanexhaustiveanalysisof theindividual.Theyaretheworldforanygivenbeing-thereisnothingelse besides[27] Whatwecalla'being",oran'individual",or'I",isonlyaconvenientnameor alabelgiventothecombinationofthese?vegroups...These?veaggregates together...aredukkhaitself(samkha¯ra-dukkha)[28] Therefore,he[theBuddha]undertookthetaskofrede?ningtheconceptof man.Accordingtohim,thiswasmerelya'bundleofperceptions" (sanÇkha¯rapun˜ja)oragroupofaggregates(khandha),notdiscreteanddiscon- tinuous,butconnectedandcontinuousbywayofcausality,a'bundle"(ka¯ya) which,forthesakeofconvenience,isdesignatedbysuchnamesasSa¯riputa andMoggalla¯na[29].

TheProblemofParinibba¯na

TheBuddha"sPathtoliberationisonethaturgesthespiritualseekertoknowperfectly thenatureofconditionedexistence(anicca,dukkha,anatta¯)andinthisway,overcome sufferingandbondagethatfollowsfromignoranceofconditionedexistence: Bothformerlyandnow,Anura¯dha,itisonlystress(suffering)thatIdescribe, andthestoppingofstress.(SamÇyuttaNika¯ya,XXII.86) TheBuddhadidnotchoosetoteachaboutwhatliesbeyondsuffering.Onseveral occasions,heindicatedthatwordsandconcepts,inherentlysuitedtodescribing conditionedexistence,canservetoconfusemattersifappliedtothewrongsphere:

Upasõ¯va:

Hewhohasreachedtheend:

Doeshenotexist,

orisheforeternityfreefromaf?iction?

Please,sage,declarethistome

asthisphenomenonhasbeenknownbyyou.

TheBuddha:

Onewhohasreachedtheendhasnocriterion

bywhichanyonewouldsaythat- forhimitdoesn"texist.

AgainstNo-A¯tmanTheoriesofAnatta¯13

Whenallphenomenaaredoneawaywith

Allmeansofspeakingaredoneawaywithaswell.(SuttaNipa¯ta,V.6) AdvocatesofthepositivedoctrineseemtoinferthatbecausetheBuddhafocusedhis teachingsonconditioned,phenomenalexistence,thenhemeanttosaythatconditioned phenomenalexistenceexhaustsourrealityofperson.Similarly,theyseemtoinferthat becauseNibba¯nacannotbedescribed,thenthetermmustdepictnothingatall,save thosekhandhaswhichlackelementsofcravingandignorance.ThedeathofanArahant (bywhichhepassesintoParinibba¯na),mustonthisview,logicallyentailhisabsolute extinction,sincethefuelofdesireforfurtherexistence,intheformofkhandhas,has burntup.Itisthereforeinterestingthatseveraladvocatesofthepositivedoctrine,such asRahula,stopshortofadmittingtothislastpoint[30].ThisisduetotheBuddha"s ownwarningsagainstannihilationism:nowheredoeshestatethatParinibba¯naamounts totheTatha¯gataabsoluteextinction(asabove,hedeemsitbeyondwords).Inthe YamakaSuttaoftheSamÇyuttaNika¯ya(XXII.85)suchaviewisactuallybrandedan'evil supposition".OnpainofattributinglogicalconsistencytotheBuddha,Itakethisas preliminaryevidencethattheBuddhadidnotadvocatethepositivedoctrineofanatta¯. ConditionedKhandas:NotSuf?cienttoExplainNibba¯na ThepositivedoctrinegoeswithregardingNibba¯nasolelyinthose'netineti"termsthat werepartoftheBuddha"steachingsonnon-attachment,aimingatthecomplete cessationofcravingthatisthekammicseedoffuturekhandhas.However,thecessation ofcravingdoesnotimplythecessationofallthatisreal.AuthorssuchasThanissaro Bhikkhu,LindtnerandWernerhavegatheredenoughcanonicalevidencetoexposethe mistakeofthisaustereposition:therearealsosuttaswheretheBuddhaspeaksof Nibba¯na,orthegoalofspiritualprogress,inaf?rmativeterms[31].Incontextofthe Buddha"steachings,thesesuttasarenotofcourseintendedasliteraldescriptionsof Nibba¯na.Myguessisthattheyaretheretopreserveamiddlepath,implicitlywarning seekersandscholarsagainstthetypeoferrorthatmayveeroneintoannihilationist camps-hometothepositivedoctrineofanatta¯.Inordertokeeptheirpositionssecure, residentsofthiscampwouldhavetoignore,orunderplaytheaf?rmativesuttas.Itis thereforenotsurprisingtoseethatreferencetothesesuttasisscarce,thepositive doctrinebeingsopopular.Asitturnsout,itisalsoimpossible(Ishallargue)toexplain theattainmentofNibba¯naineventheattenuatedsense(ascessationofsuffering)ifwe areviewedasnomorethanatemporaryarrangementofthe?veconditionedkhandhas. InhisbookTheMindLikeFireUnbound,ThanissaroBhikkhupresentsacareful, sustainedargument,backedbycanonicalevidence,totheeffectthatNibba¯na(and Parinibba¯na)isnotblanknothingness[32].Ratherthenrepeatingtheseargumentsat length(onwhichitisbesttoconsulthisbook)Iwillpresentacoupleofthesuttasthat Thanissaropointsoutinsupportofhismainsuggestion.IntheAsamÇkhata-samÇyuttaof theSamÇyuttaNika¯ya(XLIII.1-44),Thanissaronotesthattheterm'Nibba¯na"isonly onewordamongstmanyusedbytheBuddhatodepictthegoalofspiritualprogress:

Theunfashioned,theend,

theef?uent-less,thetrue,thebeyond, thesubtle,thevery-hard-to-see, theageless,permanence,theundecaying, thefeatureless,non-differentiation, peace,thedeathless,

14MiriAlbahari

theexquisite,bliss,solace, theexhaustionofcraving, thewonderful,themarvellous, thesecure,security, niba¯nna, theunaf?icted,thepassionless,thepure, release,non-attachment, theisland,shelter,harbor,refuge, theultimate. WerethisversetoappearinS´anÇkara,mostofthetermswouldbeproperlyregardedas metaphoricaldepictionsofA¯tmanandBrahman:similarly,thetermsarenot,aswehave mentioned,tobetakenasliteraldescriptionsoftheNibba¯nicstate.Yet,theircombined impressionindicates,asitwouldintheUpanis½ads,thatthegoalofspiritualprogressis (somehow)activelywonderful,indeedthebestpossible'state"-andsomorethanjust apassivevacuumleftintheabsenceofcraving[33]!This?iesinthefaceofthat Therava¯dintendency,notedbyWerner,totreattheultimatelevelofspiritualprogress asifitwereacoma-ablankstateofnothingness[34].Advocatesofthepositive doctrinewhodogosofarastoadmitthatNibba¯nainvolves'perfecthappiness",suchas Kalupahana,characterisethis'paramasukha"asthemerecessationofcraving,suffering andde?lements[35].Butwhilethecessationofsuffering(etc.)necessarilyprecedes Nibba¯nic'happiness",itdoesnotsuf?cientlyexplaintheaf?rmative?avour.Being unconditionedbykhandhas-nocon?gurationofkhandhascanaffectit-Nibba¯nic 'happiness"cannotbesolelyaccountedforintermsofthekhandhas,whetherbywayof positivedescriptionornegativecessationandyettheabovesuttacompelsonetoregard Nibba¯nic'happiness"asmorethanamereblank.Whenthisisconsideredalongsidethe factthatsuchparamasukhaisunconditioned,independentofthekhandhas,and potentiallyattainablebyeveryperson,itbecomesverydif?culttomaintainthatour nature-orthenatureofanArahant-consistsofonlytheconditionedkhandhas. 'Consciousness"or'awareness"aretermsusedtoconveyA¯tmanintheUpanis½adic tradition.InBuddhistliterature,theword'consciousness"isassociatedwiththose impermanent,object-orientedtypesofconsciousnesswhichformpartofthekhandhas. Advocatesofthepositivedoctrineinsistthatthesearetheonlytypesofconsciousness theBuddhawouldadmitto.However,Thanissarohasdrawnattentiontoanumberof suttaswhichspelltroubleforthisview[36].AmongthemistheBa¯hunaSuttaofthe AnÇguttaraNika¯ya(X.81)whichspeaksofan'awareness"(or'mind",inanother translation)thatis'released"fromthecycleofconditionedexistence-therebyconnect- ingwiththeTatha¯gata"ssupremewisdom(pan˜n˜a¯)thatunderstandsconditioned existence.This'awareness"or'mind"(whichknowsdukkha)isclearlynotaf?ictedwith dukkha-unlikeconsciousnessoftheconditionedkhandhas: Freed,dissociated,&releasedfromtenthings,theTatha¯gatadwellswith unrestrictedawareness,Ba¯huna.Whichten?Freed,dissociated,&released fromform...feeling...perception...processes...consciousness...birth... aging...death...stress...de?lement,hedwellswithunrestrictedawareness. Justasared,blue,orwhitelotusborninthewaterandgrowinginthewater, risesupabovethewaterandstandswithnowateradheringtoit,inthesame waytheTatha¯gata-freed,dissociated,&releasedfromthesetenthings- dwellswithunrestrictedawareness[37].

AgainstNo-A¯tmanTheoriesofAnatta¯15

Lindtnerhasalreadynoted,inabracketedaside,that'[knowingwhat"strueorfalse]is notsomethinganyoftheskhandhascando!"[38]Hisobservation,althoughsimple, strikesthroughtheheartofthepositivedoctrine.Forhowcanthataspectofmind whichcompletelyknowsdukkha,andisthusbeyonddukkha,stillbedukkha?In short,thestatusoftheTatha¯gataorArahant,asWernerurges,shouldnotcontinueto beignoredintheTheravadintradition[39].Bytranscendentalnecessity,weare compelledtoacceptthatthereismoretotheirrealitythantheconditionedkhandhas, whosenatureisanicca,dukkha,anatta¯.Afurtherprincipleisneededtoaccountfor whatwordsmustinadequatelydepictastheArahant"s'supremewisdom",'unrestricted awareness"and'perfecthappiness".Thatfurtherprinciple,Lindtnerhassuggested,is

A¯tman[40].

ConditionedKhandhas:NotSuf?cienttoAttainNibba¯na Evenbeforeconsideringtheaf?rmativesuttas,wecannotsupplyasatisfactoryexpla- nationofhowonecanattainNibba¯na,quacessationofsuffering,ifthatpersonis exhaustivelyanalysedas?veconditionedkhandhaswithinsam½sa¯ra,thecycleofdepen- dentorigination.Thereisapointinthecycle,betweenkammicallyneutralsensations andkammicallyactivecraving,wheredespitethein?uenceofpastkamma,thereis alwaystheoptiontolessenthatcraving.Thisraisesthenaturalquestion:fromwhere doesthisimpetusarise;theurgeforwholesome(kusala)actsoverunwholesome (akusala)acts?Fromwhatsourcedothepowerfulstatesofmindfulness,joyand wisdomspring,whentheNobleEightfoldPathisfollowedtotheendofsuffering? Advocatesofthepositivedoctrine,suchasGethinandRahula,willinsistthatthisall comesfromwithinthecycleitself[41].Justasthekhandhasarise,saysRahula,they containtheseedfortheirowncessation.Thusdukkhacontainstheseedforitsown cessation,andhence,sotoodoestheentirewheelofdependentorigination.''Thirst" [whichleadstoarisingofdukkha]andwisdom[whichleadstocessationofdukkha]are bothwithintheFiveAggregates"statesRahula[42]. Rahula"sapproachappearstoconfuselevelsofexplanation.Thecapacityforthe cessationofeachindividualkhandhaisnotbyitselfenoughtoexplainthecessationof higher-levelpatterns,importantly,thecycleofsam½s¯ara.TheBuddhahasstatedthatas longasignoranceandcravingarepresent,thecycleofsufferingwillnevercease,but willcontinueoninde?nitely.Itisthereversalofthisoverallpattern-conditionedby countlesslifetimesofde?lement-thatbegstobeexplained.Justastheperpetuationof sufferingisexplainedbytheforcesofignoranceandcraving,thecessationofignorance andcravingmustbeexplainedwithreferencetocounter-forcesthatareyetmore powerful.Thesecounter-forcesareexpressedthroughvirtuousconduct(si¯la),concen- trated,sustainedawareness(sama¯dhi)andwisdom(pan˜n˜a¯),whichGethinattributesto a'wholesome...current"withinthemind[43].Itwillnotdo,however,tocharacterise thepotencyofthis'current"asthemerediminishingofignoranceandcraving,any morethanitwilldotoexplainNibba¯nic'happiness"asthemereabsenceofsuffering. Norwillitdotolocateitssoleoriginwithintheconditionedkhandhas,evenifsuch qualitiesareplayedoutthroughthekhandhas,alongtheEightfoldPath.Forwhensi¯la, sama¯dhiandpan˜n˜a¯arecultivatedtotheirpurestform,weseethereisaperfect understandingofanicca,dukkha,anatta¯,henceapermanentendtothewholecycleof suffering.Theraisond"eˆtreofsuchqualitiescannotthereforeissuefromthatwhich merelyisanicca,dukkha,anatta¯,subjecttothelawofdependentarising.

16MiriAlbahari

AnUnconditionedElementinHumanNature

TheBa¯hunasutta(above)hintsatatranscendental,butunderlyingsourceforsi¯la, sama¯dhiandpan˜n˜a¯;that'unrestrictedawareness"or'mind"withnobarriers,whichis 'freed,dissociatedandreleasedfromthesetenthings",thetenthingspertainingto dependentorigination.Theideathatthemindis'released"suggeststhattheelementof Nibba¯naisnotcon?nedtothatbeyondconditionedexistence,asasheerend-point,but isinherenttoournature.Thiswouldproperlyexplainone"simpetustofollowthe NobleEightfoldPath,withitsculminationinNibba¯na.Forevenwhilecoveredby ignoranceandkammiccontaminants,abedrockoftheunconditionedwouldaccount forinsightoverignorance,theabilitytostayconstantlymindful,andtheabundantjoy. Whenfreedfromfettersofignoranceandcraving,thisPath?nding,ultimatelyinde- scribablepartofournaturewillbewhatisliberated-inaccordancewiththeabove sutta.Ifontheotherhandweconsiderournature(whenunenlightened)tobeonlythe conditionedkhandhas,arisingandpassingaway,thenitisdif?culttoexplainour capacitytoattainNibba¯na-notonlyforreasonscitedabove.Sincetheelementof Nibba¯naisnotsubjecttoarisingorpassingaway,itcannotbeanewconditionthat arisesuponthecessationofignorance.Itseemsthatthedissolutionofignorancemust uncoverthatwhichisever-presenttoournature.InAdvaitaVeda¯nta,itistheultimate sourcetothesattvicqualities.

WhatifSam½sa¯raisNibba¯na?

Lindtnerhassuggested(inlinewithsomeMaha¯ya¯nateachings)thattheBuddha impliedanultimateidentitybetweenNibba¯naandsam½sa¯ra[44].Itmightbeobjected thatifweacceptthisBuddhistequivalenttotheA¯tman-Brahmanidentity(ifitisindeed anequivalent),thenwewillbeforcedtoacceptalsothatsam½sa¯raandthekhandhasare afterallthewholeofhumanreality.Coulditbethatbyacurioustwistofirony,the positivedoctrineofanatta¯issupportedbyaparallelwithAdvaitaVeda¯nta?Ifso,itis averydifferentdoctrinetothatwhichhassofarbeenpresented.Thecentrallineofthe no-A¯tmanversionisthattheconditionedkhandhas,quadukkha,anicca,anatta¯,exhaust thescopeofhumanreality.Butifthekhandhasareultimatelyidenticalwiththe principleofNibba¯na,then,forreasonsthathavebeenoutlined,wewillbecompelled tosaythatthereismoretohumanrealitythanthekhandhas,quaanicca,anatta¯,dukkha. Thekhandhasquadifferentiated,willnotbetheendofthestory,justasthepsycho- physicalsheathsofma¯ya¯,quadifferentiated,arenottheendoftheVeda¯nticstory.In eithertradition,theendofthestoryisunderstoodonlythroughthedirectexperience ofEnlightenment.

Rejectingno-A¯tmanTheoriesofAnatta¯

Enoughhasbeensaidtoprovidesolidevidenceagainstthepositivedoctrineofanatta¯. Throughunderplayingthose'af?rmative"suttaswhichstandBuddhismuncomfortably closetoVeda¯nta,and,inkeepingwiththeirtheory,advocatesofthisdoctrineare unabletoaccountfortherealityoftheArahant,orthepossibilityofattainingNibba¯na. Intheprevioussectionitwasarguedthatthegroundsforholdinganegativedoctrine ofanattaarelikewiseuntenable.Therejectionoftheseno-A¯tmantheoriesofanatta¯ greatlyunderminesthequesttodrawaneasymetaphysicalcontrastbetweenBuddhism andHinduism.

AgainstNo-A¯tmanTheoriesofAnatta¯17

Anatta¯asaPracticalStrategy

Havingrejectedno-A¯tmantheoriesofanatta¯,itwouldbeimprudentto?nishbefore indicatinghowwearetobestunderstandtheBuddha"steachingsonanatta¯.Once again,ThanissaroBhikkhuprovesinsightful.HehassuggestedthattheBuddhadidnot teachanatta¯asametaphysicalassertion,butasa'strategyforgainingreleasefrom suffering"[45].Regardinganatta¯asapracticalstrategyimmediatelyharmoniseswith theBuddha"sdisinclinationtodwelluponmattersmetaphysical.Italso,asweshallsee, preservesthecentralityofanatta¯totheheartoftheBuddha"steachings: Bothformerlyandnow,Anura¯dha,itisonlystress(suffering)thatIdescribe, andthestoppingofstress.(SamyuttaNika¯ya,XXII.86) WhatfollowsisabriefinterpretationoftheBuddha"scentralteachings,bywhichit seemsnaturaltoconstrueanatta¯asapracticalstrategy.Afterpresentingthis,itshallbe seenhowsuchareading?tswithsomeofthewell-knownearlysuttas. 'Ifoneusestheconceptofnot-self[ratherthanno-self]todis-identifyoneselffrom allphenomena,onegoesbeyondthereachofallsufferingandstress",writesThanissaro [46].Thatbeyondsufferingisnot,aswehaveseen,theBuddha"semphasisofteaching (althoughwehavemanagedtogleanthatitisfarfromannihilation).Theemphasisis ratheruponwhatwe,asnon-liberatedbeings,canbegintoknowrighthereandnow -thenatureofconditionedexistence.Ourplight,onthisreading,isthatweperceive theconditionedworldwithadeeplyrootedbias.Wefalselyproject,bothemotionally andintellectually,ideasofa'self"quaI-permanent-non-suffering,uponwhatisinher- entlynot-self,thekhandhas.Thisdoesnotmeanthatwealwaysperceivethingsas indestructible:ratherweviewthemashavingmorepermanenceandsubstantialityand selfhoodthantheyactuallyhave-orrather,don"thave.Misperceivingthetruenature ofconditionedthingsgeneratesfalseexpectationsanddesiresastohowtheywill behave,andonthoseinevitableoccasionswhendesiresarefrustrated,thereissuffering. Thisfalseprojectionismanifestedthroughone"sidentifyingwithandbecoming attachedtoelementsofconditionedexistence.Fromherespringallnotionsof 'I-the-doer",'Iamthis",'me"and'mine",andwiththis,adistortedviewofreality. Forexample,behindidentifyingwiththisbodyas'me"lurksavestedinterestthat 'I"shallalwaysremainhealthy;adesirethatbetraysadeepnon-acceptanceofthe body"simpermanentstate.Physicalsufferingcannotbeavoided,andanon-acceptance ofitsinevitabilitywillgenerateagreaterdegreeofmentalsufferingwhenillnessstrikes. BycontrastitisreportedthattheArahant,havingthoroughlyacceptedthebody"s natureasanicca,dukkha,anatta¯,suffersnomentalpain,evenwhenrackedwith physicalpain. TheBuddhaurgesonetoendsufferingbyremovingthoseaforementionedbiases fromthemind.Inthiscontext,thesuttasonanatta¯functionaspracticalimperatives, discouragingthemindfromprojectingideasofselfhood,permanenceandnon-suffering ontowhatisinherentlynon-self,impermanentandsuffering,viz.thekhandhas.This amountstodiscouragingalltendenciestograspandidentifywiththekhandhas,hence alltendenciestowards:'Iamthis",'thisisme"and'thisismine".DotheBuddhisttexts supportsuchaninterpretation?Itwillbeinstructivetobeginwithapassagefromthe Anatta¯-lakkhanasutta(oftheSamÇyuttaNika¯ya,XXII.59)thathasbeencitedbyGethin asanargumentforthedenialofA¯tman,andhence,anargumentforthenegative doctrineofanatta¯:[47] 'Whatdoyouthink,monks?Arebody...feeling...recognition...volitions... consciousawarenesspermanentorimpermanent?"

18MiriAlbahari

'Impermanent,lord." 'Butissomethingthatisimpermanentpainfulorunpainful? 'Painful,lord". 'Butisit?ttingtoregardsomethingthatispainful,whosenatureitisto changeas"thisismine,Iamthis,thisismyself"?" 'Certainlynot,lord." 'Therefore,monks,allbody...feeling...recognitions...volitions...con- sciousawarenesswhatsoever,whetherpast,presentorfuture,whethergross orsubtle,inferiororre?ned,farornear,shouldbeseenbymeansofclear understandingasitreallyis,as'thisisnotmine,Iamnotthis,thisisnot myself"." ContraGethin(andStevenCollins,towhomheattributestheargument),theabove suttaholdsnoimplicationsforthedenialofaself(unlessthepositiveanattadoctrine isalreadypre-supposed!).TheBuddhaisnotaimingtodrawanontologicalconclusion. TheBuddhaisonlyurgingthatthekhandhas,byvirtueoftheirimpermanent,painful naturearenotworthyofbeingregardedasaself,andarehenceunworthyofattitudes pertainingto'I"and'mine".Throughsuchre?ections,heencourageshisseekersto regardthekhandhasintheirtruelight.Thissoundsverymuchlikeanapplicationofthe practicalstrategy,theimperativetoneimplyingthatthekhandhasare(mis)judgedby non-arahantstobelesspainfulandimpermanentthantheyreallyare.Gethinhas correctlyobservedthattheaboveexchange'occursfrequentlyintheearliestBuddhist texts"[48].Contrarytohisdesiredconclusion,thisprovidesstrongcanonicalevidence forviewinganatta¯asprimarilyapracticalstrategyratherthanametaphysicaldoctrine. Thepragmaticinterpretation?ndsfurthersupportinthisfollowingextractfromthe GaddulaSutta(SamÇyuttaNika¯ya,XXII99)whosethemehasalsofrequentedearly Buddhisttexts.Onceagainitisemphasisedthattheendtosufferingisthrough dis-identifyingwiththekhandhas: Butawell-instructed,discipleofthenobleones-iswell-versed&disciplined intheirDhamma-doesn"tassume[khandhas(form,feeling,perception, mentalformations,consciousness)]tobetheself,ortheselfaspossessing [khandhas],or[khandhas]asintheself,ortheselfasin[khandhas]. Hedoesn"trunaroundorcirclearoundthatveryform...thatveryfeeling... thatveryperception...thoseveryfabrications...thatveryconsciousness.He issetloosefromform,setloosefromfeeling...fromperception...from fabrications...setloosefromconsciousness.Heissetloosefrombirth,aging, &death;fromsorrows,lamentations,pains,distresses,&despairs.Heisset loose,Itellyou,fromsuffering&stress. Consider,?nally,theconclusionofthissutta(SamÇyuttaNika¯ya,XXXV.205): Inthesameway,amonkinvestigatesform,howeverfarformmaygo.He surveysfeeling...perception...fabrications...consciousness,howeverfar consciousnessmaygo.Asheisinvestigatingform...feeling...perception... fabrications...consciousness,howeverfarconsciousnessmaygo,any thoughtsof'me"or'mine"or'Iam"donotoccurtohim. InnoneoftheseBuddhistsuttasistheresupportforno-A¯tmantheoriesofanatta¯.The messageissimplytoceaseregardingthekhandhasinthosetermsbywhichthenotion ofA¯tmanhas,itself,beensoeasilymisconstrued.Aswehaveseen,detachingoneself

AgainstNo-A¯tmanTheoriesofAnatta¯19

fromthephenomenalentrailsofpsycho-physicalexistencewasalsoacentralpartof S´anÇkara"sstrategy.ThereishencenothinginthesesuttasthatS´anÇkara,thechief proponentofAdvaitaVeda¯nta,wouldhavedisagreedwith.49 MiriAibahari,DepartmentofPhilosophy,UniversityofCalgary,Canada NOTES [1]LINDTNER,CHRISTIAN(1999)FromBrahmanismtoBuddhism,AsianPhilosophy,9(1),pp.5-37. WERNER,KAREL(1996)Indianconceptionsofhumanpersonality,AsianPhilosophy,6(2),p.104. [2]THANISSARO,BHIKKHU(1993)TheNot-SelfStrategy,onwebsitehttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/ modern/thanissaro/notself.html,pp.1-8.Unlessstatedotherwise,allcitationsfromBuddhistsuttas thatappearinthispaperaretranslatedbyThanissaro,Bhikkhu. [3]PRASAD,H.S.(2000)Dreamlesssleepandsoul:acontroversybetweenVeda¯ntaandBuddhism,

AsianPhilosophy,10(1),pp.61-73.

[4]KALUPAHANA,DAVIDJ.(1976)BuddhistPhilosophy:AHistoricalAnalysis(Hawaii,Universityof

HawaiiPress),pp.10and38-39.

[5]PRASAD,op.cit.,note3,pp.68and69.Foraverystrongexpressionofthenegativedoctrine,see RAHULA,SRIWALPOLA(1958)WhattheBuddhaTaught(HongKong,BuddhistLibraryofChina), p.51. [6]OSBORNE,RICHARD&VANLOON,BORIN(1997)IntroducingEasternPhilosophy(Cambridge,Icon

Books),p.83.

[7]LINDTNER,op.cit.,note1,p.17,pointsoutthattheterm'Brahman"wasmuchabusedatthetime oftheBuddha. [8]S´ANÇKARA(1968)inPRABHAVANANDA,SWAMI&ISHERWOOD,CHRISTOPHER(Trans.)Shankara"s Crest-JewelofDiscrimination(California,VedantaPress).DEUTSCH,ELIOT(1969)Advaita Veda¯nta:APhilosophicalReconstruction(Honolulu,UniversityofHawaiiPress). [9]WERNER,op.cit.,note1,pp.94and104. [10]S´ANÇKARA,op.cit.,note8,pp.76,77and70. [11]FromDEUTSCH,op.cit.,note8,pp.27-65. [12]SANKARA.,op.cit.,note8,pp.90-91. [13]ibid.,p.75. [14]ibid.,p.96. [15]ibid.,p.87. [16]DEUTSCH,op.cit.,note8,p.47.S´anÇkara"spassage,citedinDEUTSCH,op.cit.,p.47,isfrom S´anÇkara"sBrahmasu¯trabha¯sya,III,2,17. [17]SeeDEUTSCHop.cit.,note8,pp.15-26,chapteronsubration. [18]LINDTNER,op.cit.,note1,p.27. [19]WERNER,op.cit.,note1,p.96. [20]IntheMajjhimaNika¯ya2,translatedbyTHANISSARO,BHIKKHU,op.cit.,note2,p.5. [21]DEUTSCH,op.cit.,note1,p.11. [22]LINDTNER,op.cit.,note1,p.17. [23]Insupportofthispoint,LINDTNER,ibid.,p.19,maintainsthattheBuddhadeniedanA¯tmanonly inconnectionwiththekhandhas,andnotinthesenseofBrahman. [24]S´ANÇKARA,op.cit.,note8,pp.94,98and92. [25]S´ANÇKARA,op.cit.,note8pp.96and99. [26]PRASAD,op.cit.,note3,p.69. [27]GETHIN,RUPERT(1998)TheFoundationsofBuddhism(Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress),p.136. [28]RAHULA,SRIWALPOLA,op.cit.,note5,pp.25and26. [29]KALUPAHANA,op.cit.,note4,p.39.Foranotherrecentexpressionofthepositiveanatta¯doctrine, seeSIDERITS,MARK(1997)Buddhistreductionism,PhilosophyEastandWest,p.466. [30]RAHULA,op.cit.,note5,p.41. [31]AlthoughexcerptsshallbemainlydrawnfromTHANISSARO,BHIKKHU(1993)TheMindLikeFire Unbound,locatedonthewebsitehttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/like?re/index.html. [32]ibid.

20MiriAlbahari

[33]Inafootnote,RAHULAop.cit.,note5,p.36,alsoacknowledgesthe'positive"?avourofthese'32 synonymsforNibba¯na",someofwhichhelists(e.g.'Auspicious",'Good",'Purity",'Peace" 'Refuge").Hedoesnot,however,acknowledgethetroublethatthismaycauseforconsistencyof hispositiveanattadoctrine. [34]WERNER,op.cit.,note1,p.104,maintainsthatthenotionoftheTatha¯gatashouldbeconstrued ashavingthe'positive"statusofthatwhichisunexploredandunfathomable,thusbe?ttingtothe Buddha"sanalogy:'deep,immeasurable,hardtofathomlikethegreatocean"(MajjhimaNika¯ya,72). [35]KALUPAHANA,op.cit.,note4,pp.81-82. [36]Otheraf?rmativesuttasonNibbanaortheliberationof'awareness"canbefoundinTHANISSARO, op.cit.,note31,andLINDTNER,op.cit.,note1. [37]Atranslationthatoffersthisvariant(butisotherwiseverysimilar):'theTatha¯gatadwellswitha mindwhosebarriersarebrokendown"isinWOODWARD,F.L.(1972)TheBookoftheGradual Sayings(AnÇguttara-Nika¯ya),Vol.V(London,Luza),p.103,issuedbythePa¯liTextSociety. [38]LINDTNER,op.cit.,note1,p.28. [39]WERNER,op.cit.,note1,p.104. [40]LINDTNER,op.cit.,note1,p.28,basesthissuppositionuponversesfromtheAnÇguttara-Nika¯ya I,including:'atta¯tepurisaja¯na¯tisaccam½va¯yadiva¯musa¯". [41]GETHIN,op.cit.,note27,pp.156-159;RAHULA,op.cit.,note5,pp.31-32,42and53-54. [42]RAHULA,op.cit.,note5,p.42. [43]GETHIN,op.cit.,note27,pp.157-158. [44]LINDTNER,op.cit.,note1,pp.20-26. [45]THANISSARO,op.cit.,note2,p.1. [46]ibid. [47]GETHIN,op.cit.,note27,pp.136-137.ThesuttaiscitedasitappearsinGethin(nottranslated byThanissaro). [48]ibid.,p.137.SimilarthemesarerepeatedinsuttasthroughouttheKhandhaVagga(SamÇyuttas,

XXII-XXXIV).

[49]TheauthorwouldliketothankSoniaAlbahari,MichaelLevine,JohnBakerandSperanza Dolgettawho,invariousways,helpedthispapertobewritten.