Stopping the Flow of Dependent Origination
Photo: Buddhadāsa Indapañño Archives C06152
“Buddhism specifies that there is no self at all, no permanent center in anything, nothing that does not change. But isn’t the element of consciousness, which is found in all living things, that unchangeable center? And though it may not be called the self, as ego is self, it is in its purified form that found in Nibbāna, the essential spirit of all living things. So while we do not contain self, while the self is illusion, spirit is not. We contain spirit, spirit is real.”
~ Response by Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu ~
This is a rather troublesome problem, because we run into the great difficulties of language. The meanings of words are very ambiguous, so this can be quite troublesome. When we use the word ‘self’ it is something that does not exist in nature. Self (attā) is something that cannot be found in nature. So it might be better to speak about the word ‘soul.’ Soul is something found in living things. Different meanings are given to the word ‘soul.’ Some people treat it as if it were some eternal unchanging substance. But our understanding of the word ‘soul’ is just that it’s the natural element of consciousness, what in Buddhism is called viññāṇa-dhātu that exists in all living things. This element of consciousness is just something natural, existing on the mental or spiritual level of living beings. It is natural, it exists, and there’s no problem regarding this element of consciousness, at least at the start.
But the problem is this element of consciousness – whatever you call it, whether you call it ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ or whatever – it is very easily attached to as being self. The problem arises when we take the element of consciousness to be self or attā, so we need to understand what is meant by the word ‘self’ or ‘attā.’
The word ‘soul’ in itself is no problem, but when we cling to the soul as being self, that is the problem. Soul is just mind, it’s just the mental side or level of existence. It just refers to the mentality within life. In the Pāli language we just call it ‘life’ or the ‘jīvitindriya’ (the faculty of life), or the quality of life that exists within the mind. That’s all that’s that meant to us by soul. But as soon as we cling to that soul as being self, as being attā, then there arises the problem.
The problem is what does the word ‘self,’ or ‘attā,’ mean? So far nobody has been able to explain this word satisfactorily. People have some idea about what self is, and then explain it accordingly, but all they’re doing is talking about self or explaining self according to their own personal opinions or views. No one has been able to explain self in a universally acceptable way. Nobody is able to show what the self is. All we have are lots of opinions and beliefs about it. So we have the problem of what the word ‘self’ means, and nobody can explain it because it doesn’t really exist. Some people see something and then explain that that is the self, that is the true self, but Buddhism will not accept that anything is self. The thing might be there, but Buddhism can’t insist that it is the self. Most religions have chosen something and claimed that that is the real self, that is the true self, and then they explain according to that particular view, opinion, or dogma. But Buddhism, having looked at all those things, can’t see that any of them are really a self. Buddhism therefore teaches that all those things are not-self, that those things that different groups take to be self are in fact not-self.
You shouldn’t call them a self, you shouldn’t take them to be a self. In spite of the fact that many groups in the world are claiming that there is some kind of self and propagating that kind of understanding, and in spite of the fact that the vast majority people feel they have a self, Buddhism denies that there is anything that really is a self, anything that ought to be called a self. Buddhism teaches, “Don’t bother taking anything to be a self, don’t bother calling anything a self.” So there’s this problem about what the word ‘self’ means. People are explaining it according to personal views, but nobody can prove that their view is correct. If somebody is able to explain the word ‘self’ in a satisfactory way, then maybe this problem will disappear. But so far they can only satisfy themselves, they can’t satisfy others.
Let’s look at the meaning of the word attā, which is the Pāli form, or ātman, which is the Sanskrit form. It seems that the original meaning of the word attā means ‘to be’ or ‘to exist.’ It means that essence or substance, that thing that really is, that truly exists. But even this is uncertain. Some language experts argue that the original meaning or the root of attā is assa, and that the meaning of assa is ‘to eat.’ Some people say the meaning of assa is ‘to be,’ ‘to exist,’ but some say it means ‘to eat.’ Then they explain that attā means ‘that which eats everything else,’ and then that just confuses the whole issue and makes a mess out of it. But others explain that attā means ‘that which is’ or ‘that which exists.’ The way that attā is usually applied in common understanding is because before Buddhism existed, all the thinkers and teachers in India said that there was some kind of attā, some kind of self. And it was described in various ways, such as that essence or substance which knows things through the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind. The spirit or whatever you want to call it that experiences the world through the senses, that is sometimes called the attā. Or other times the attā is the thing that thinks, or the thing that knows, or the thing that experiences. That substance that experiences or thinks is often explained to be the attā. Buddhism can’t accept that. Buddhism recognizes that there are things that can see, hear, smell, taste, touch, or things that know through the senses, and there are the things that think. But Buddhism can’t recognize that any of these things are self, because the idea of self is that there’s something that truly exists, that doesn’t change. And to think that that thing which knows through the senses doesn’t change, that has no meaning in Buddhism. Because if one observes the knowing through the senses, you’ll see that it keeps changing. There’s not some unchanging knower or experiencer.
Or take some Western thinkers like Descartes, who said: “Cogito, ergo sum.” (I think, therefore I am.) Here Descartes has attached to the thing which thinks, whatever it is that thinks. He thinks that that is the self, that which truly exists. But Buddhism studies the thinking and sees that, ‘Oh it can think, there are things that think without requiring any self.’ So there are those who claim that whatever it is that thinks or knows, that is the self. But Buddhism observes that all these things which know, think, or whatever – whatever it is that does things – is changing, it isn’t some unchanging substance or essence. And so this problem goes on and on. There are all the different explanations of self, but nobody can agree on them. Even the different religions – or even in each religion – give different understandings. Buddhism doesn’t accept any of those explanations of self, that those things really exist or truly exist. So this question of self is a very tangled one, and it’s an unending question. As long as people are attaching to self, they’ll keep formulating ideas and theories about the self, and this will go on endlessly. But understand that real Buddhists don’t find a self anywhere. They see the things that think and feel and experience, but those things are changing all the time, and can’t properly be called a self.
To understand these different perspectives on self, let’s take a look at the final goal. The final goal for those who have self, who hold or believe that there is self, is for this little self to merge with the big self or the great self, the eternal self, such as in the Hindu teachings. Or take Christianity where there’s the belief in some little individual self, and the goal is to co-exist with God in eternity, to exist in eternity. So these are conceptions of some self which will enter eternity, some idea of an eternal self. The other way of looking at this, the Buddhist perspective, is that to begin with there isn’t anything which is self. There never was anything that rightly could be called a ‘self.’ In Buddhism the final goal is eternal voidness, to realize and dwell in the eternal voidness, the voidness that is totally free and void of self and anything having to do with self. So one viewpoint is for this self to co-exist as an eternal self with the great self, or with God or whatever. The other perspective is that there never was a self, there never will be, and the final goal is to realize and live in that eternal voidness. So the problem for everyone is, ‘what to do?’ There are these two perspectives on self – people in this world can be divided into two camps. There are the groups that believe there is some self, and then there are those who don’t see a self anywhere. And so what are we going to do about this business of self?
Let’s look at the final goal or eternity as it exists right now. Let’s take a look at the eternity of eternity, the eternity that we can find right here and now, not the eternity of thoughts and beliefs. If right now the mind is void – is free of all thoughts of me and mine, there’s no thinking, no awareness, no sense or feeling of me or mine, of self, in the mind – then the mind in that moment dwells in eternity. The mind realizes that eternity as soon as it is void of self. But once the mind starts to think in terms of self again, once it starts to hold onto the sense of self, or the concepts of self, then that eternity disappears. This is something immediate, direct, and experienceable by everyone here. When the mind is void of self, eternity appears. When the mind is no longer void, when the mind is caught on self, centered on self, then eternity disappears. In fact that eternity is here, it’s always waiting, but we can only realize it, experience it, or see it for ourselves when the mind is free of self, is void of self, of me and mine. To get this self into eternity doesn’t seem to fit with experience or with reality. It seems much easier to just leave the self alone, and then eternity is right there. All you have to do is drop the self. So what you’re going to do with this problem of self, or how you’re going to get the self into eternity, is a difficult question.
Buddhists don’t feel a need to believe anyone else. Buddhists don’t accept things on someone else’s authority; they investigate things for themselves and only accept what fits with their own spiritual experience. Buddhists observe in their own experience that when the mind is void of self – when there are no thoughts or feelings of self in the mind – then everything is light, the mind is free. There’s wellbeing and peace, there’s no problems, there’s nothing that could be called dukkha, could be called pain, or painful, or unpleasant, or suffering. But then when the mind isn’t void, as soon as there are thoughts of self, as soon as the mind holds onto something as being me, as being self, as ‘this is what I am,’ immediately the mind becomes heavy, tight. It’s no longer free, open, vast, and luminous; it becomes small and heavy. The mind that holds to something as self is burdened. The mind that is void of self is free. Examining things in this way that when the mind is void of self, there’s no dukkha, but when the mind is holding to something as being self, that there is dukkha. In order to be free of dukkha, which is the goal of all religions – all religions are seeking the end of suffering – Buddhists state, “Well the best way, the easiest way to get free of suffering, is just to be free of self.” Having observed how when the mind is void of self, there is no dukkha, no pain, nothing unsatisfying, then they see that voidness of self is the way to deal with the problem of dukkha. The Hindus see it differently. Their approach to suffering is to take the self, to merge with the eternal self, or the paramātman, which means ‘supreme self.’ And the Christians, their approach is for the self to do whatever is necessary to go live in the Kingdom of God. But the Buddhists see that the best approach is to just be void of self. All of you are free to examine things for yourself, and to choose as you see fit. So these are your choices: a self that is going into eternity, or eternal voidness of self. It’s up to you which you choose.
By just examining your own experience carefully, through practicing mindfulness, you can see for yourself that when the mind is void of ‘I’ and ‘mine,’ void of self, that the mind is free, is light, is cool, it has no problems. But that as soon as the mind is full of self, that things become hot, intense, that things are heavy, that there is dukkha. This is something that you can see for yourself, and then draw your own conclusions. If we see this, then we can understand how they explain that attā means ‘the eater’, the one that eats. Because you can see how attā eats the heart of the one who has attā. Whenever there is attā or self in the mind, in the heart, then that self eats the heart, it eats it, it creates dukkha, or suffering. So we can see some meaning in this word, this explanation that attā is the one that eats, or the eater. Buddhists then see that it’s best to be free or void of self. If this self just eats the heart, just creates dukkha, it’s better to be totally void, to be free of it.
Those that believe in self, who say there’s a self, they deal with the problem a little bit differently. But they’ve got their way of dealing with this problem. They distinguish between defiled self and undefiled or pure self. And so their approach is to destroy or get rid of all the defiled kinds of self, or the sinful self. And when all that defiled self is gone, then one realizes the pure self, the undefiled self. So they see things in terms of false self, which they sometimes call ‘ego,’ and true self, which is sometimes called the ‘eternal soul,’ and that one gets rid of all the false self, and then there is the true self to dwell in eternity. So that’s the approach of those who have a self. But as soon as you call it ‘self,’ Buddhism isn’t interested. Buddhism doesn’t want to have anything to do with anything called ‘self,’ because self in any form, whether you call it true or false, is seen in Buddhism as being an illusion. It’s just something that deludes us and tricks us. So Buddhism isn’t interested in anything that’s called ‘self.’ Instead Buddhism is interested in voidness of self, or voidness from self.
So in summary, attā or self comes from avijjā, from ignorance, from not knowing or from wrong knowing. When there is no avijjā, none of this ignorance, then there is no self, but as soon as there is ignorance then there is self, one takes something to be self, one sees everything in terms of self. So the Buddhist understanding is that self is the result of ignorance, and that when there is no ignorance, there is no self. If one can overcome ignorance, if one can see things as they really are, then one sees that there is nothing anywhere that can be rightly taken to be self. Nothing can be correctly, truly regarded as self. Self comes from ignorance, by overcoming ignorance there is no more self.
Now the problem here, another aspect of it we should consider, is that as soon as we’re born from our mother’s womb we’re ready to take things as self. We’re born ignorant. That’s not a judgment, it’s just the way things go. We’re born without wisdom. And so we’re ready from the very start to take things as self. So right from the very beginning we begin to see things as self because of this inherent ignorance.
So as soon as we’re born we become stupid. Because of this ignorance we start acting foolishly. From soon after birth when some sight strikes the eyes we think ‘I see,’ some sound strikes the ear and we think ‘me hears,’ some volatile gases enter the nose and we take it to be ‘me smells.’ There are tastes on the tongue and we think ‘me tastes,’ things touch the body and we think ‘me touches’ or ‘I am touched,’ and then thoughts, feelings, memories in the mind, we take it to be ‘me.’ This foolishness starts very early, practically from the moment of birth where whatever contacts the senses it’s taken as me that experiences it or knows it.
So we’re tricked or deceived every time there is something that strikes the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind. We take it all to be I see, I hear, I smell, and so on. This is the first round of deception. We’re tricked here, but then we’re tricked again. Whatever it is that made contact, we’re tricked into thinking that’s positive or negative. And so we’re tricked again, that the sight, the smell, the sound, the taste, whatever, is positive or is negative. This self gets strong, this self grows even further. So we’re deceived twice, and so the self gets very big.
We’re tricked the first time and self arises, so that’s the first level of stupidity. And then there’s the feelings of positive and negative, and we’re tricked even more, we become even more stupid, and the self becomes intense, much bigger, much stronger. This is something that you don’t need anyone to tell you, you can just see it because this is happening to everyone here. These two levels of deception are happening right now. Everyone is sitting here with this self, deceived by this illusion of self and the illusion of positive and negative.
A very easy example will help to illustrate this, an example from childhood. A child is careless and walking, bumps into a chair. After bumping into the chair it hurts, the leg hurts or something, and the feeling arises, self, myself. And then the child also projects self on the chair. My self and that self hurt me, and so the child kicks the chair. The first level of illusion is taking this to be self, the pain in the leg or whatever, to be self. And then the second level of illusion is to think the chair is the self, and then one is so stupid one kicks the chair as if that will do any good. This illustrates very clearly these two levels of the illusion of self.
Sometimes the mother, father, or nurse will come and kick the chair too, to show sympathy or solidarity with the child. So this just makes the kid even more stupid, not to mention the adults.
So all this helps to explain this illusion or the illusions of self. The self is thoroughly stupid, it arises out of an illusion and leads and grows into bigger illusions. The soul is still dumb but it’s not quite so stupid. It doesn’t know anything, and it doesn’t go around grabbing things to be self, but as soon as self arises, things get really messed up and everything is upside down and thoroughly stupid. If you study this, if you study how the illusions of self arise and understand it, see it, experience it deeply, then one will see through the self, and self will no longer exist. One will be free of self. There won’t be any more self or of self, no me, no mine. And then there won’t be any more problems or questions about self.
Sometimes we break or destroy our pencil or pen because it doesn’t respond to our desires. We want it to do something and it doesn’t do it, so we – aargh – break it or throw it away or smash it. This shows how stupid we can be, how broad and expansive this stupidity about self can be, that we take the pen to be a self and try to punish it and get angry at it, hate it. This is the power of the illusion of self.
Remember the short words, please try to remember the words: “Wherever there is self, there is a problem. When there is no self whatsoever, there are no problems, there are no hassles, no troubles, no pain, no dukkha.” We study Dhamma as the way to be free of pain, to be free of self. We study Dhamma to be free of this illusion of self, to be void of self, and then there are no more problems, there aren’t any troubles, nothing is difficult, everything is free.
If you experience success in practicing mindfulness with breathing then you won’t have any more problems with self. Practice correctly until there is deepening insight and experience of aniccatā (impermanence), dukkhatā (the painfulness of impermanent things), anattatā (not selfhood), dhammādhiṭṭhatā (the naturalness of things), dhamma-niyāmatā (the lawful, the natural lawfulness), idappaccayatā (dependence and conditionality), suññatā (voidness), thāthātā tathatā (thusness), and atammayatā (the mind that is untouched by anything positive or negative). Then seeing all of these there will not be any more illusions or problems with self, and then there are no more problems in life. From all of this information, all of these observations, you can study the matter for yourself, and then you will know what self is.
From the retreat “Stopping the Flow of Dependent Origination,” as translated from the Thai by Santikaro
Dhamma Questions & Responses sessions were offered by Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu in 1990-1991 to foreign meditators attending Suan Mokkh International Dharma Hermitage courses.
Listen to this teaching on Soundcloud
Listen to other English retreat talks by Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu
For more information and free ebooks, visit Suan Mokkh – The Garden of Liberation