Five Views on Anatman (No-Self)
Interpretations of the concept of no-self/soul. (Pali: anatta; Sanskrit: anatman)
(I made the names of the positions.)
View #1 Anatman and Atman (the position of the Nikayas/Agamas). The emphasis is on the fact that there is no eternal, unchanging, and absolute self/soul. This is the acquired technical meaning of "atman" in Indian spiritual philosophy: eternal, unchanging, absolute self/soul. In this sense there is no self/soul (anatman).The Buddha further taught, although this was not a central doctrine in his teachings, that there is no "I" or "I am" (which includes a self/soul in the generic sense) in the ultimate nature of phenomena. Thus in ultimate reality there is not even a changing self/soul. But he did in fact believe in the relative reality of the self/soul because he continuously spoke of it and even solemnly advised his disciples to "take refuge in yourself/soul." It was more than a mere conventional linguistic construct. Therefore there is a relative self/soul but not an absolute self/soul. The distinction between relative and absolute is not stated but it can be deduced.
This is the position of the earliest scriptures of Buddhism. Unfortunately this "middle way" has been abandoned for the past 2,000 years.
View #2 Complete Anatman (the position of traditional Buddhism). There is no self in any sense whatsoever except merely as a conventional conceptual and linguistic construct, i.e. as the common way of looking at things. There are two realities: ultimate and conventional. But the conventional "reality" is not an actual reality. It is merely conventional.
This position is just absolutely ridiculous. To make an analogy: it is like someone who steps outside of his house, looks through a widow, doesn't see anyone, and then determines that nobody lives there. To try to find oneself and not find oneself is idiocy because the self is the one who was trying to find it to begin with. However, this position is correct on the point that the Buddha taught that in ultimate reality there is no self/soul.
View #3 Anatman but Person (the position of the Pudgalavada school, BCE). There is no atman but there is a person that is associated with the five aggregates. This was regarded as heretical by the majority of Buddhist schools.
This position makes sense. The distinction between atman (self/soul in the acquired technical meaning) and person would have been useful.
View #4 Anatman of Aggregates Only (the position of small minorities within Buddhism and some revisionist scholars). That the Buddha only said that the five aggregates are not self/soul and that he did not deny the transcendent True Self that is the Dharmakaya. This concept comes up sometimes in historical Mahayana Buddhism. It is also believed in the 20th century Theravadan "Dharmakaya Movement" in Thailand. Several Western scholars have also proposed that the Buddha only denied the five aggregates in order to disassociate from them and be left with only the Absolute. This was a teaching method in Indian spirituality called "neti, neti" (not this, not that).
This position seems plausible at first. But it does not account for the Buddha's teaching that there is ultimately no "I" or "I am." One would have to read through a many Nikayas/Agamas to find this teaching, but it is there. It was a higher level teaching that was not central to his message.
View #5 Agnosticism (the position of some Western scholars). The Buddha declined to state whether the self/soul does or does not exist. He did not teach on this topic.
This position has some truth to it but it is not the whole truth. There is one sutra in which the Buddha refused to answer someone on the question of whether or not there is a self/soul. That is, he declined to state yes or no. This was on the grounds that he would get attached to a concept when in fact the reality of the situation is somewhere in between any conceptual constructs. The Buddha's position was that there is a relative self/soul but not an absolute self/soul. Thus there cannot be a simple yes or no answer to the existence of the self/soul. In one sense the answer would be yes but in another sense the answer would be no. To take either side on this in a "yes" or "no" manner would result in misunderstanding, according to the Buddha.
(I made the names of the positions.)
View #1 Anatman and Atman (the position of the Nikayas/Agamas). The emphasis is on the fact that there is no eternal, unchanging, and absolute self/soul. This is the acquired technical meaning of "atman" in Indian spiritual philosophy: eternal, unchanging, absolute self/soul. In this sense there is no self/soul (anatman).The Buddha further taught, although this was not a central doctrine in his teachings, that there is no "I" or "I am" (which includes a self/soul in the generic sense) in the ultimate nature of phenomena. Thus in ultimate reality there is not even a changing self/soul. But he did in fact believe in the relative reality of the self/soul because he continuously spoke of it and even solemnly advised his disciples to "take refuge in yourself/soul." It was more than a mere conventional linguistic construct. Therefore there is a relative self/soul but not an absolute self/soul. The distinction between relative and absolute is not stated but it can be deduced.
This is the position of the earliest scriptures of Buddhism. Unfortunately this "middle way" has been abandoned for the past 2,000 years.
View #2 Complete Anatman (the position of traditional Buddhism). There is no self in any sense whatsoever except merely as a conventional conceptual and linguistic construct, i.e. as the common way of looking at things. There are two realities: ultimate and conventional. But the conventional "reality" is not an actual reality. It is merely conventional.
This position is just absolutely ridiculous. To make an analogy: it is like someone who steps outside of his house, looks through a widow, doesn't see anyone, and then determines that nobody lives there. To try to find oneself and not find oneself is idiocy because the self is the one who was trying to find it to begin with. However, this position is correct on the point that the Buddha taught that in ultimate reality there is no self/soul.
View #3 Anatman but Person (the position of the Pudgalavada school, BCE). There is no atman but there is a person that is associated with the five aggregates. This was regarded as heretical by the majority of Buddhist schools.
This position makes sense. The distinction between atman (self/soul in the acquired technical meaning) and person would have been useful.
View #4 Anatman of Aggregates Only (the position of small minorities within Buddhism and some revisionist scholars). That the Buddha only said that the five aggregates are not self/soul and that he did not deny the transcendent True Self that is the Dharmakaya. This concept comes up sometimes in historical Mahayana Buddhism. It is also believed in the 20th century Theravadan "Dharmakaya Movement" in Thailand. Several Western scholars have also proposed that the Buddha only denied the five aggregates in order to disassociate from them and be left with only the Absolute. This was a teaching method in Indian spirituality called "neti, neti" (not this, not that).
This position seems plausible at first. But it does not account for the Buddha's teaching that there is ultimately no "I" or "I am." One would have to read through a many Nikayas/Agamas to find this teaching, but it is there. It was a higher level teaching that was not central to his message.
View #5 Agnosticism (the position of some Western scholars). The Buddha declined to state whether the self/soul does or does not exist. He did not teach on this topic.
This position has some truth to it but it is not the whole truth. There is one sutra in which the Buddha refused to answer someone on the question of whether or not there is a self/soul. That is, he declined to state yes or no. This was on the grounds that he would get attached to a concept when in fact the reality of the situation is somewhere in between any conceptual constructs. The Buddha's position was that there is a relative self/soul but not an absolute self/soul. Thus there cannot be a simple yes or no answer to the existence of the self/soul. In one sense the answer would be yes but in another sense the answer would be no. To take either side on this in a "yes" or "no" manner would result in misunderstanding, according to the Buddha.