This Real Self Business
Contemplations essays by Maurice O'C Walsh
'Do It Yourself — There is No Self — 'Be a Lamp (or an Island) Unto Yourself. It is not very surprising that the newcomer to Buddhism (and sometimes even the old stager) gets rather puzzled about this 'self business. Let us therefore attempt to shed a little light on this difficult but important subject.
The best place to begin is at the beginning. The observance of this simple rule makes a lot of things easier, though the fact is not always remembered. The English language possesses several pronouns such as myself, yourself and so on, which are rendered in Pali by atta (in Sanskrit atman). This is the everyday use, which is completely matter-of-fact and unmetaphysical. Some such terms are inevitably used in all languages. They are convenient and conventional, implying nothing whatever about the reality or otherwise of the 'entity' they refer to. We merely need to note that in Buddhism such an entity is considered, for the best of reasons, only relatively or conventionally real. In terms of absolute truth there is no such thing, but in terms of relative truth there is. All we have to observe, then, is whether in any given case a statement is made in terms of the relative or the absolute truth. This alone obviates much confusion.
But this distinction, though vital, does not of course remove all difficulties. Let us first take a look at the 'self which does — relatively — exist. We are very familiar with this, our nearest and dearest, and so it comes as something of a shock to learn that it is not 'really' real. We may even be quite indignant at such a suggestion. And yet even here there is something rather odd. Many people today do not believe in an immortal soul, or any 'entity' that survives bodily death. But if this 'self does not survive the death of the body, it surely cannot be very real even now.... We arc not, for the moment, discussing the Buddhist view of rebirth, but merely suggesting that fur the non-believer in survival the 'self must after all be a very peculiar thing.
There is however at least one important sense in which the relatively real 'self is taken quite seriously even In Buddhism. If 1 robbed a bank last week, I can't avoid the consequences by declaring that as 1 don't really exist it wasn't really me, whether in a court of human law or In terms of the
law of karma. Neither human nor karmic justice will accept such a plea. In fact in the Buddhist view , karma will even catch up with me after death if it has not done so before! So our relative reality, however ultimately illusory, is not without its importance.
At this point it may look suspiciously as if Buddhists were trying to have it both ways. They agree, it appears, with the implication of materialism that there is no permanent or immortal soul, while also apparently agreeing with the Christian idea of post-mortem rewards or retribution. 'Curiouser and curiouser', as Alice would have said....
Let us see. The relatively real 'entity' is in fact a process — a constantly flowing river which, though not one drop of water remains stationary, nevertheless is for us, conventionally and practically, 'the same' river. If we prefer the image of an electric current, we can also think of rebirth as the continuing flow of such a current even though successive bulbs are worn out. This flow continues until the fuel that feeds it - craving - has ceased.
One of the various factors that go to make up our 'personality' is volition (cetana). It is this which many people identify with the self — 'I want'. Yet this too is just as
impersonal as all the rest, which is why we can become aware of conflicting desires within us. The whole of karma is based on this volition factor, so that for the relatively real 'me' it is very important. This is the main reason why self-knowledge is so vital. But it should by now be clear that 'self-knowledge' in Buddhism docs not mean 'getting to know one's true Self (for there is no such thing), but seeing through the spurious self.
People learning to practise mindful self-awareness sometimes ask at this point: 'If I am supposed to be observing myself, what is it that does the observing?' In the light of what has been said, this may be quite a puzzle. But the simple answer is actually that one moment of consciousness has for its object a previous moment of consciousness. And by practising this exercise we gradually learn to realise that the process actually is just as described. A point is then eventually reached when, craving being temporarily suspended, the whole thing is seen with utter detachment and thus seen through. This is the beginning of the decisive stage of the cure, the beginning of the path that leads to the cessation of craving and therefore of all sense of frustration and pain.
All things (including our precious 'selves') are in truth impersonal (anatta) or 'void' (SCinya) as the Mahayanists generally prefer to say. Despite certain occasional polemically tinged suggestions to the contrary, the two expressions are virtually synonymous. And, curiously enough, the realisation of this truth, which looks so negative and perhaps even rather frightening, is bliss ineffable. That, however, is another story.
loading..
