The Birth of Buddhism Unit MBI 101
Lesson 13
The recommended minimum study time is 60 minutes with a 5 minute break of quiet introspection after the first twenty minutes. Relax and read for internal understanding not rote learning. The truth always lies beyond the words used to express that truth. Therefore look to the essence of what is presented. If you approach this and other lessons with an academic approach your study time will be much longer and the return less, therefore relax and open yourself to the true learning experience. If you wish to study the lesson more, then do so for fun not for achievement.
Eternalism, Materialism, Self Identification and the Middle Path
Eternalism (Sassatavada)
The early Buddhist discourses often refer to the mutual opposition between two views. One is the view of annihilation (ucchedavada) which we have discussed in the last lesson on Materialism. The other is the view of Eternalism (sassatavada), which we are going to discuss briefly here. The former is sometimes referred to as vibhava-ditthi, the belief in being and the latter as bhava-ditthi, the belief in being and in non-being.
Thus, addressing Kaccayana, the Buddha says: 'This world, O Kaccayana, generally proceeds on a duality, of (the belief in) existence and (the belief in) non-existence.’ All the fundamental doctrines of early Buddhism are presented in such a way as to unfold themselves, or flow from the refutation of both the ucchedavada and sassatavada positions. It was through the demolition of these two ancient views that Buddhism constructed its own position as the middle view.
It is against these two views that Buddhist philosophical thought is continually directed. However, we have taken a different approach and examined first the similarity between Ancient Indian Materialism and the Modern counterparts of Modern Humanism and Agnosticism and we have considered them all in counterpoint to Indian Eternalism.
In this lesson we shall continue that discussion, but add other modern ideas and ask a different question, “Does Buddhism supply better answers than any other transcendental path which now pretends to occupy the middle position?”
This question is linked to the question of the last lesson, “Is Buddhism equally applicable today when Materialism has a different coat of many colors?
The first sutta of the first Nikaya (section or 'basket') in the Tipitaka (the 'Three Baskets' of the Buddhist canon) begins with an enumeration, and a refutation from Buddha’s point of view, of ways of considering various extreme positions. This and many other suttas in the first four Nikayas show that there prevailed a wide variety of mutually exclusive speculations on the nature and destiny of man and his place in the cosmos.
The trend toward eternalism, as a natural extension of the ancient ideas, was akin to monism and orthodoxy. Therefore opposition beliefs were directed towards non-theism, pluralism and heterodoxy.
Although the eternalist and partial-eternalist positions represented a wide spectrum of religious views and practices, all appear to have subscribed to a belief in a either a soul or self-entity.
This common belief emphasized the fact that while the soul is something permanent, the body is something perishable. The religious or spiritual view then of the human creature is the theory of the metaphysical self. It was this belief in a permanent spiritual substance within man that came to be represented in the suttas as sassatavada.
Accordingly, from the Buddhist point of view, all the religions of the day which subscribed to an eternal self-subsisting spiritual entity were only different kinds of sassatavada.
The materialist tradition, as we saw, was in direct opposition to religion as inappropriate speculation, and there were also various other schools of thought. All, however, questioned the validity of theological and metaphysical theories which do not come within the ambit of sense-experience and declared that the self is the same as the body and exists only as an illusory perception.
Self Identification
Buddhism would not be in disagreement with that, but it went further. It stated that ANY kind of conceptual entity presented, whether material, mental or spiritual, is atman if it becomes an object of self-identification.
Self identification then was considered as the key. The soul was no different than any other self identification -for example the “I” of the visceral identification, the emotional self identification or the passionate thinker self identification-.
This process manifests itself, it is suggested, in three ways: this is mine (etam mama); this I am (esoham asmi); and this is my self (eso me atta). It is essentially the conscious awareness of the presence of an apparent entity independent of the physical body.
There is a general belief among some modern scholars that the materialism (ucchedavada) we have discussed rejected totally what is called atmavada or the belief in a soul or self-entity. This may be true, but as we saw, it does not preclude the concept of a natural unfolding “goodness” which is a part of the true nature of the human creature. However, this “goodness” is always appended to an existing Self that is the possessor of this goodness.
Buddhism, indifferent to other differences, puts the soul of the Eternalists in the same basket as the materialist self that searches for its auto-gratification. Thus both the delusory soul and the illusory body are atmavada. What mattered for Buddha was the debilitating self identification, not the permanence or impermanence.
Thus you see that Self Identification is the essence of the Buddhist path.
Because sassatavada emphasizes the duality between the auto-identified soul and the body, its theory of man's emancipation is based on this notion of duality. Between the soul and the body, it is the soul that is in bondage as a consequence of uncontrolled body/mind “sin” . Hence if anything is to be saved, it must be the soul from the chains of the body. It is easy then to see where the idea of asceticism entered, for the deliverance of the soul, its perpetuation in a state of eternal bliss, requires rigid austerities and renunciation of the senses and the mind objects generated as a consequence of having been sensed.
Buddha, we saw, tried the ascetic path. Why? Clearly in part because his tradition was that of the Brahmic teachings and the liberation meditations had not worked. Does this mean that he considered the possibility of an independent soul or entity? Perhaps so, but finally he perceived that this self-identification was illusion and as such, the dark Pandora’s box in which suffering was generated.
Buddha finally condemned this approach, but seems to allow that although sassatavada does not lead to the realization of the ideal of emancipation (anattha-samhita), nevertheless it does not lead to the collapse of the moral life. There was too another idea present and that was that while rigid asceticism may not be valid to liberate the non existent soul, “restraining” the mind/body might be a way to destroy the illusion of an existing self-entity and assist, at least in part, in personal liberation.
*Modern ETERNALIST POSITION More to be entered here
Scepticism
It is very likely that it was this polarization of intellectual thought into sasssatavada and ucchedavada, with a number of sects and sub-sects within each tradition, that paved the way for the emergence of scepticism and Buddhism in its turn.
Buddha, as we have said, was very opposed to materialism, possibly not on totally philosophical grounds. As an intelligent man, he clearly saw the trap if the philosophy became a popular way of living, and indeed we can see that this is the case today, no matter how much it is camouflaged with humanistic ideals. But we see that Scepticism also shied away from these extremes.
For one on the path who is not interested in debate and spiritual matters at the body/mind level, but who is awake to his true nature and is on the path to the rediscovery of a natural balance and harmony, the idea not to be involved with these matters is laudatory. The problem is that within scepticism the idea is that the truth CANNOT be known EVER.
Buddha’s approach, you can see, is quite similar.
The Potthapada Sutra
"…Now, lord, is perception a person's self, or is perception one thing and self
That, you see, was the problem from Buddha’s point of view, for it denied the possibility that others could experience AWAKENING by the DIRECT EXPERIENCE of this truth.
*Insert here scep text
The Middle Path
That is the very essence of the Buddhist way, no matter which path is taken. This conclusion is, in fact, very much suggested by the Buddha's first sermon, the Sermon on the Setting in Motion of the Wheel of the Dhamma (the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta). It is against the background of sassatavada and ucchedavada that the Buddha proclaims the Noble Eightfold Path(ariya-atthangikamagga)and the Four Noble Truths.
1. All is Suffering
2. The generation of that suffering is a consequence of the Craving and Clinging that arises from the Dual Mind.
3. What is generated can be dissolved. This is the Supreme truth of the four, because it is the AWAKENING that permits the Liberation.
4. The path to this Awakening is the Eightfold Noble Path.
But please do not make the mistake of thinking that the first, second, and fourth of these four noble truths are what they appear to be. The correct understanding of suffering is much more profound than it appears, for the common idea of both suffering and compassion is flawed. Similarly, the Eightfold Path is not simply a list which any fool could have made up. It too is difficult to understand correctly and is profound in the intricacies of its execution in relation to Dependent Origination and Suffering.
Thus Buddha was naturally opposed to anything which denied the human creature this opportunity for liberation.
This dangerous scepticism was not new. There had been sceptical hints and agnostic trends within Indian thought before this time, but the actual impetus and occasion for philosophical scepticism was provided by the extensive popularity of the transcendental dialogue of the times and the interest of the Brahmin and Warrior classes in these discussions, which brought into focus extreme, conflicting and irreconcilable theories pertaining to moral, metaphysical and religious beliefs.
Buddhism actually stepped in as a viable middle ground position previously occupied by scepticism.
In the Indian context, however, scepticism does not necessarily mean complete dissociation from any ideal of personal liberation. The position of scepticism could be taken from the point of view that consideration of spiritual matters actually interfered with the natural development of liberation, which need know nothing of the so-called unknowable. However, as we have seen, that concept denies method.
The Buddha himself calls his position “majjhima patipada” (the Middle Path) because it avoids the two extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification. The avoidance of these two extremes also means the avoidance of the two theories which serve as their background, namely sassatavada and ucchedavada, in other words, the physical and the metaphysical theories of the nature of the human personality.
The Middle Path is not a compromise between the two extremes. In the same sermon Buddha indicated that it was presented “without entering into either extreme.” It is called the Middle Path because it transcends the mutual opposition between those two extremes. But also, from our perspective, it takes over the middle path now occupied by the prevalent Scepticism with is an Intellectual Indifference to the natural unfolding of the Buddha Nature which is revealed and liberated by Buddhist practice.
The Buddhist critique of views, it may be noted here, is not confined to arguments based on logic, epistemology and ontology. It also takes into consideration their psychological motivation, that is, the mental dispositions which serve as their base, for it is abundantly clear that our desires and expectations influence our views and attitudes, not just our intentions and actions.
According to the Buddhist diagnosis of the 'psychological' roots of sassatavada (bhava-ditthi) the thirst is due to an innate craving for being (bhava-tanha), the desire to perpetuate individuality. This has a natural foundation, Jivindra, which is the natural life force to perpetuate the conscious and physical state, but it is transformed into a liability by the presence of the delusion of selfhood.
It is said too that the roots of a ucchedavada (vibhava-ditthi), are due to craving for non-being (vibhava-tanha), the desire to be completely annihilated at death, which is analogous to the condition of wanting not to suffer more.
While this may be true in the ancient world, today’s beliefs are much more likely to rest upon incredulity.
It is however certain that while religious responsibility and culpability is eliminated by a Materialist approach, social culpability may not be.
In point of fact, according to Buddhism's assessment, all religions are different forms of kammavada, because they all advocate the supremacy of the moral life.
Now we must make an important point. Buddhism appears to ally itself with Eternalist theories and practices politically. But this only means that it is an ally in maintaining social justice and an inner development of the Buddha nature which coincides with social and religious morality. Unfortunately this modern alliance masks the richness of Buddhism and its real middle path position. Thus it is considered more as a religion than a path of personal liberation.
How would Buddha react today? That is an important question.
We observed earlier that it was on the basis of the Noble Eightfold Path that Buddhism transcends the mutual opposition between sensual indulgence and self-mortification. On what basis, then, does Buddhism transcend the mutual opposition between sassatavada and ucchedavada? The answer is provided by the Kaccayanagotta Sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya, where the Buddha addresses Kaccayana thus:
This world, O Kaccayana, generally proceeds on a duality, of (the view of) existence and (the view of) non-existence. But he who with right insight sees the uprising of the world as it really is does not hold with the non-existence of the world. But he who with right insight sees the passing away of the world as it really is does not hold with the existence of the world. Everything exists - this is one extreme. Nothing exists - this is another extreme. Not approaching either extreme the Tathagata (the Buddha) teaches you a doctrine by the middle way(Tathagato majjhena dhammam deseti).
That the words 'a doctrine by the middle' are a reference to the Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination (paticcasamuppada) is clear not only from the context but also from what follows it. For immediately after this, the Buddha refers to it specifically, declaring that it is through this particular doctrine that Buddhism avoids both sassatavada and ucchedavada. It also then clearly superseded the Sceptics doctrine, which occupied the middle ground for those who could accept neither one nor the other.
It will thus be seen that just as the Noble Eightfold Path is a major part of the Middle Path, because it avoids the two extremes of sensual gratification and self-mortification, the doctrine of dependent origination is called the doctrine by the middle (majjhima-dhamma), because it avoids in the self-same manner their theoretical background.
The central position assigned to this particular doctrine is seen by the Buddha's statement that one who discerns dependent origination discerns the Dhamma. (Yo paticcasamuppadam passati so dhammam passati). This statement has often been understood as a reference to the well-known twelve-linked causal formula.
That, you see, was the problem from Buddha’s point of view, for scepticism eliminated the possibility that one could experience the AWAKENING by the DIRECT EXPERIENCE of this truth.
If Buddhism avoids sassatavada, this means that there is no self-entity within man which is impervious to change. This may also be interpreted as the denial of any kind of spiritual substance within man which relates him to some kind of transcendental reality serving as the ultimate ground of existence.
Although Buddhism does not agree with sassatavada, it does not accept total extinction.
The question is, does Modern Eternalism bear the same flaws as Ancient Indian Eternalism? The Buddhist case, you will remember, rests upon the errors of Self Identification in any form, which includes Self identification as God.
Modern Eternalism seems to have taken a very subtle turn, probably because of the clear problem of explaining away the absence of any moral deserts in this life. It is abundantly clear that evil flourishes without apparent retribution in this life. It is certain that Karmic factors provide some sort of balance, but only inasmuch as one can say that he who is disposed to evil and derives benefit from that evil will continue on that path with a greater possibility that eventually there will be some retribution. But this is just the law of probability, not Karma, at work.
Karma is much more subtle than ordinarily imagined and one’s retribution lies not in just deserts in the external world, but in the continuation of suffering. This alone is the mundane karmic position. No matter what external fruits an incorrect intention and action brings, suffering is present and ever increasing.
On the other hand, there is no positive reward for correct intentions and actions. The only reward is that one is upon the correct path of natural growth and development in the direction of a full recuperation of one’s true nature. Surely that should be sufficient reward for anyone.
The Eternalist replies with the concept of “the unknown will of God”, but in the face of a world with human disasters of incredible dimensions this is increasingly being ignored. Suffering is then considered as a subsisting condition independent of God and God’s will. Thus Eternalism is combined with a new philosophy, a patchwork quilt of psychological ideas. This quilt of many colors is a very useful concept, for it can be used with or without the presence of Eternalism, indifferent Scepticism or Materialism. It apparently fits every circumstance. The problem is that the patches are just that, a temporary (disguised with future promise) covering with the hope and trust that something will happen to eliminate permanently both conscious and subconscious suffering.
All the psychological (and psychiatric) systems and alternative systems are no different than the older systems, because there is a dependence upon the idea of an Identity, a Self which is infirm and which must in some way be cured, reformed, altered or changed. Clearly the Buddhist position is contrary to such ideas. The only system that at least has an appearance of validity is the Skinnerian system because it does exactly what it pretends do: change behavior, not the Identity substrate that other psychological systems attempt to understand and recondition.
Another major trend is through the use of energy, exemplified by the concept of polarity. It holds its sway on the basis of the undeniable presence of energy and follows the path of the manipulation or guidance of that energy. Negative energy, it is claimed, is eliminated and positive energy generated. Of course this is an oversimplification, but it presents the general idea.
That Buddhism uses the manipulation of energy cannot be denied. In both the Theravadin and Mahayana systems of meditation, correct energy use is essential, for example, in concentration, where correct one pointed attention must be accompanied by the least energy possible to maintain the attention. This is clear in Tibetan Shine, Theravadin Meditation on Breathing and the Diaphragm, Mantra Recitation, the application of Devotion (awe and joy) in the Pure Land, and in all the contemplation methods of Chan. But the essential difference is that in Buddhism, the energy is used to transcend the Self concept, while the prevalent energy systems (therapies) wish to generate a Positive Self to replace the Negative Self.
Once again you can see that this mental state of a belief in an existing Self is alien to Buddhism. That there is an Illusory Self, actually split in four apparently different categories in Buddhism, does not change the matter, for to generate an Illusory Self for an apparent Soul, Presence or other mental product does not give it actual existence. Thus, on the same grounds, these practices are rejected.
Immediately, those familiar with Tibetan systems, which include visualizations of Gods and various other beings will, from their positions of little knowledge, (which is always dangerous) claim that Buddhism is not free from ideas of Supreme Beings.
There are no Supreme Beings in Buddhism. Those who are advanced in Tibetan practice understand completely the use of Energy and Illusion. These figures are tools on the path. For example, the practices of Tara permit the identification and strengthening of the natural and correct intentions which reside within us as pure attributes of the human creature. The practices of Chenresig develop the resident and natural characteristics of Correct Compassion and Benevolent Love that arise from Correct Intentions and Actions. The practices of Vajrasattva reduce the habit strength of impediments.
All the other apparent Deities, both gentle and fierce, have their role, which is to provide true insight into the nature of the Illusory Self. This insight dissolve the personal acceptance of a real Existing Self, thus changing its debilitating function as a Delusion into its natural function as Illusion.
Thus you can see that all Buddhist paths are one path, moving in one direction. That direction is the elimination of the mental Delusion of the existence of a Self without denying the use of the idea of Self as a known Illusion. Each path is perfectly suited to its task and each of the many paths has its strength, which makes it suitable for individuals with distinct character attributes inherited at birth, along with other genetic and karmic factors.
Neither Eternalism, Materialism, Scepticism nor any alternative path provides the way that eliminates human suffering and brings balance and harmony with all sentient creatures. Neither Humanism, Agnosticism, Psychiatry or Psychology, nor any of the modern therapies eliminates human suffering. Nor do they bring a true understanding of the human condition nor permit the human creature to truly become one with all things.
Religious systems may bring one closer to a delusory UNITY with a Supreme Being. Some systems may bring an apparent UNITY with the delusory material world. Others may bring a false sense of UNITY with one’s delusory Self. But these, even the UNITY with a Supreme Being, become just ABSOLUTE DUALITY (God and the rest).
Perhaps the ancient idea of full union with an unidentifiable, unknowable Brahma is the closest to true unity, and this may be why Buddha himself accepted initially that concept, for as we saw in the Upanishads, “Brahma is all, all is Brahma”.
But Buddhism goes even further, to the fount of unity, and declares that true unity is not the sum of the parts. The parts are only illusion and there never was and never can be anything less than true Non-Duality.
Liberation then, in this unique Buddhist path, consists in understanding at a level more profound than conscious intellect, that all is Non-Dual, while accepting the Illusion of Duality as a tool to walk, without mind created suffering, in this marvellous and enchanting world of Illusion, accompanied by a full awareness of the Illusion of a separate existence, acting always in concert for the benefit of all apparently separate sentient creatures.
But this position too is within the realm that the sceptics would call unknowable and therefore not relevant. Buddhism does not encourage speculation on even this matter. It takes the position that we must accept what it may appear to be until we see the truth by Direct Experience, which is beyond all understanding of the words used to express that concept.
Why then do we spend so much of our energy thinking about this apparent transformation after death?
Transformation