Buddhism

There Is No Self

The topic of this commentary is a section from the questions of king Milinda, based on the no-self doctrine. It is taken from the Khuddaka Nikaeya. King Milinda ruled from 115-90 BC some 400 years after the paranibbana of the Buddha. Milinda was a Greek king (know in Greek as Menander), King Milinda asks the venerable monk Nagasena who was said to be an arhat (enlightened one) a series of questions that attempt to highlight the problems and contradictions in some of the Buddhist teaching. The Buddhist teaching had most likely reached the Greek territories (that of north west Afghanistan) through the missionaries of the great Buddhist Emperor Ashoka (304-232 BC). There is little doubt that both Milinda and Nagasena were historically real people and that their discussion actually took place, it is likely that pieces of Buddhist doctrine were added in at a later date, this is common in most oral traditions- were pieces of teachings would be added in to relevant stories, to make them easier to remember. While this may water down the account the writing still seems to have captured some of the personality of the two men. Nagasena is intelligent, witty and makes good use of analogies, which is very common in the Buddhist teachings. King Milinda seems to be interested and studied in the Buddhist teaching yet does not seem willing to accept it’s teachings without good reason

buddhanet.net

‘Then drew near Milinda the king to where the venerable Nagasena was; and having drawn near, he greeted the venerable Nagasena, and having passed the compliments of friendship and civility, he sat down respectfully at one side. And the venerable Nagasena returned the greeting, by which, verily, he won the heart of King Milinda.’

This opening verse is a brief indication of how highly the Buddhist monks were regarded. Not only does that King travel to the monk, who was a Buddhist missionary, but the texts points out that the warm greeting he offered to the king, winning his heart. This empathizes how the Buddhist were respected and seen as kind and likable people.

‘And Milinda the king spoke to the venerable Nagasena as follows: —
"How is your reverence called? Bhante, what is your name?"
"Your majesty, I am called Nagasena, my fellow-monks, your majesty, address me as Nagasena: but whether parents give one the name Nagasena, or Surasena, or Virasena, or Sihasena, it is, nevertheless, your majesty, but a way of counting, a term, an appellation, a convenient designation, a mere name, this Nagasena, for there is no self here to be found."’

Here we have the beings of one of the unique philosophies in the Buddhist doctrine, the idea of ‘no self’ or ‘ anatta’. The Monk Nagasena begins by saying that his name is no more than a label; something that exists just to makes communication easier. He points out that he could just as easily be given a number of different names, this is to point out the lack of importance that the Buddhist tradition place upon our names. For many, your name is very important and much more than a label, your name is integral to who you are and to how you identify your self. The idea that there is no ‘self’ or ‘soul’ is one that is radically different from any other religions. ‘When neither self nor anything permitting to the self can truly be found, this speculative view ‘the universe is that atman, I shall exist that after death, perminatment, abiding, everlasting, unchanging, and I shall exist forever, is wholly and completely foolish’ Atman is according to Upanishads the ultimate self, for some Indian religions it was universal but for others it was individual, the Buddhist tradition was quite happy to borrow ideas from other traditions such as a version of reincarnation, but it still rejected many ideas that were taken for granted as being wholly true. The Buddhists believe that behind the name there is no constant being, that is eternal. There is no underlying being that exists constantly regardless of the changes that affect it. The Buddhist believe that impermanence is part of the wheel of samasara, the cycle of birth and rebirth, of conditioned existence, and that nothing escapes it; therefore there is no permanent ‘you’ or ‘I’. This Buddhist approach is seen as a very nihilist view and one that is often contested. The Buddha teaches that by clinging (upadana) to what is considered a false idea of the self causes suffering (dukkha), this ignorance means we crave (tanka) things for ‘ourselves’ this craving is the second noble truth, the cause of suffering. The link between our ideas of selfhood and our continued conditioned existence are very close, the idea of the self influences many decisions we make and for Buddhist moving away from the idea of no self is integral to the cesscession of suffering.

Then said Milinda the king,—
"Listen to me, my lords, you five hundred Yonakas, and you eighty thousand monks! Nagasena here says thus: ‘There is no self here to be found.’ Is it possible, pray, for me to assent to what he says?"

This verse has two interesting points, the first is that the vast numbers that appear to be present, which (if not an exaggeration by more zealous writers?) indicates just how influential the monk is. The King asks the question whether or not it’s possible to believe what Nagasena is saying, this highlights just how radical this Buddhist doctrine was, and in many ways still is.

And Milinda the king spoke to the venerable Nagasena as follows:—
"Bhante Nagasena, if there is no self to be found, who is it then furnishes you monks with the monkly requisites, —robes, food, bedding, and medicine, the reliance of the sick? who is it makes use of the same? who is it keeps the precepts? who is it applies himself to meditation? who is it realizes the Paths, the Fruits, and Nirvana? who is it destroys life? who is it takes what is not given him? who is it commits immorality? who is it tells lies? who is it drinks intoxicating liquor? who is it commits the five crimes that constitute ‘proximate karma?’1 In that case, there is no merit; there is no demerit; there is no one who does or causes to be done meritorious or demeritorious deeds; neither good nor evil deeds can have any fruit or result. Bhante Nagasena, neither is he a murderer who kills a monk, nor can you monks, bhante Nagasena, have any teacher, preceptor, or ordination.

King Melinda asks an important question, if there is no self, how can there be crime and karma. The logic runs as such, according to Buddhist beliefs that there is no continuous soul, that person I was ten years ago, is not the person I am now. If this is true it could be construed to conflict with the Buddhist idea of karma. The idea that the actions we take now will affect our future lives’ re-births, but it would seem logical that if we are different people in the future our pasts’ actions were done, in a sense, by a different person, therefore to receive punishment or praise because of it would seem unfair. It would be similar to arresting an innocent man because someone else committed the crime. Gethin also questions this unique Buddhist idea, he raising the question of personal continuity, if there is no-self, I am not the same person who robbed the bank yesterday, so how can I be held responsible, he believes ‘the whole foundation of morality [is] undermined and it is tantamount to a doctrine of nihilism ’. While Buddhist strongly opposes this view, on surface value, some Buddhist ideals are very similar to that of nihilism. Buddhism strongly disagrees with claims of nihilism and has a strong ethical structure. A way to explain the link between past and present versions of the self, is by analogy. The events in ones life are like links in a chain, the link at the start of the chain may be very different to the one at the end yet there is only one chain.

When you say, ‘My fellow-monks, your majesty, address me as Nagasena"Nay, verily, your majesty." "Is the hair of the body Nagasena ? "Nay, verily, your majesty.""Are nails . . . teeth . . . skin . . . flesh . . . sinews . . . bones . . . marrow of the bones . . . kidneys . . . heart . . . liver . . . pleura . . . spleen . . . lungs . . . intestines . . . mesentery . . . stomach . . . faeces . . . bile. .. phlegm . . . pus . . . blood . . . sweat . . . fat . . . tears . . . lymph . . . saliva . . . snot . . . synovial fluid . . .urine . . . brain of the head Nagasena? "blood . . . sweat . . . fat . . . tears . . . lymph . . . saliva . . . snot . . . synovial fluid . . .urine . . . brain of the head Nagasena?….Is now, bhante, form Nagasena?…Is sensation Nagasena…Is perception Nagasena?…Are the psychic constructions Nagasena?…Is consciousness Nagasena? [note too all of these questions nagasena answered ‘nay, verily, your majesty’]"Are, then, bhante, form, sensation, perception, the psychic constructions, and consciousness unitedly Nagasena?" "Nay, verily, your majesty.""Is it, then, bhante, something besides form, sensation, perception, the psychic constructions, and consciousness, which is Nagasena?" "Nay, verily, your majesty."
"Bhante, although I question you very closely, I fail to discover any Nagasena. Verily, now, bhante, Nagasena is a mere empty sound. What Nagasena is there here"’

This section refers to the Buddhist view of how the person is made up. The skandhas, the five aggregates, are the constituenents that make up the personality. First Milinda asks whether the physical body is the ‘self’, Nagasena unsurprisingly says no- very few religions place importance on the physical body in respect to eternal life, the closest to this would be certain catholic doctrines that alluded to your body being reformed at the end of the world. Milinda lists the five skandhas, I think it could be highly possible that these were added in at a later date because I believe that it would be unlikely Milinda would use such Buddhist terminology- if he was aware of these teachings already he would not question them in this undirected manner. The five skandhas that make up the personality are, form (rupa) which refers to the physical world, and the five sense- sight, smell, sound, touch and taste. The second is mental activity that takes place as a result of these physical senses, this is known as feeling (vendana) our experience continuously produces feelings of comfort or unpleasantness which is directed by our physical form. All of these feelings and senses are recognised as something e.g. a tree. This recognition and identification of things is the third skandha, perception (sampan). From your perception we have habitual trends laid down by our experiences, mostly subconscious, these pshyic constructions or mental formations (samskara) exist because if you perceive, say an apple, when you are hungry your experiences provoke tendencies to reach out and eat the apple. The last Skandha is the consciousness (vijnana) it is the basic awareness of what we are doing and how we interact with the world around us, how we analyse the other skandas . Nagasena says that none of these skandha constituted a self. One of the common characteristics of the self is as the inner controller, but none of the Buddhist skandhas can take that role, they are all subject to different agents.

"Your majesty, you are a delicate prince, an exceedingly delicate prince; and if, your majesty, you walk in the middle of the day on hot sandy ground, and you tread on rough grit, gravel, and sand, your feet become sore, your body tired, the mind is oppressed, and the body-consciousness suffers. Pray, did you come afoot, or riding?"
"Bhante, I do not go afoot: I came in a chariot."
"Your majesty, if you came in a chariot, declare to me the chariot. Pray, your majesty, is the pole the chariot?"
"Nay, verily, bhante." [Note: Nagasena lists the parts of the chariot-axle, wheels, body, yoke reins etc. all of which the king replies ‘nay, verily’
"Your majesty, although I question you very closely, I fail to discover any chariot. Verily now, your majesty, the word chariot is a mere empty sound. What chariot is there here? Your majesty, you speak a falsehood, a lie: there is no chariot. Your majesty, you are the chief king in all the continent of India; of whom are you afraid that you speak a lie? Listen to me, my lords, you five hundred Yonakas, and you eighty thousand monks! Milinda the king here says thus: ‘I came in a chariot;’ and being requested, ‘Your majesty, if you came in a chariot, declare to me the chariot,’ he fails to produce any chariot. Is it possible, pray, for me to assent to what he says?"

The somewhat repetitive speech is another remnant that this is an oral tradition, the repetitive dialogue obviously made the teachings easer to remember, the actual teachings of the Buddha remained in oral form for hundreds of years after the Buddha- the first evidence of writing Buddhist teaching comes from the time of a Ashoka who engraved Buddhist teachings along with laws on the land on stone pillars. It was not until Buddhism spread to China that the widespread writing of Buddhist teaching began. The analogy of the chariot is a famous explanation of the no self-principle. The chariot is a sum of its parts, remove the wheels and the body and you no longer have a chariot at all; merely a selection of pieces of wood. In this sense, when we die the some of our whole is taken apart, there is no self. It could be argued that if there is ‘no-self’ how can rebirth occur? A continuation of Nagasena’s analogy can be used to explain this, if the self is a chariot, death would be when the chariot is taken apart and is no longer a chariot but merely a collection of wood, re-birth would be if this wood was then used to built a boat. The same ‘material’ is used but the result is a very different thing. Another interesting aspect of this section is how Nagasena speaks to the king, he calls the king a liar and questions whether the king is afraid to speak the truth, this form of questioning is very similar to that of the Buddha were they seem unconcerned about who they are speaking to.

" Then Milinda the king spoke to the venerable Nagasena as follows:—
"Bhante Nagasena, I speak no lie: the word ‘chariot’ is but a way of counting, term, appellation, convenient designation, and name for pole, axle, wheels, chariot-body, and banner-staff."
Thoroughly well, your majesty, do you understand a chariot. In exactly the same way, your majesty, in respect of me, Nagasena is but a way of counting, term, appellation, convenient designation, mere name for the hair of my head, hair of my body . . . brain of the head, form, sensation, perception, the psychic constructions, and consciousness. But in the absolute sense there is no self here to be found. And the priestess Vajira, your majesty, said as follows in the presence of The Blessed One:—

Even as the word of "chariot" means
That members join to frame a whole
So when the Groups appear to view,
We use the phrase, "A living being."

"It is wonderful, bhante Nagasena! It is marvellous, bhante Nagasena! Brilliant and prompt is the wit of your replies. If The Buddha were alive, he would applaud. Well done, well done, Nagasena! Brilliant and prompt is the wit of your replies."

King Milinda concedes that the chariot is merely a label, and in the same way Nagasena is only a label for the skandha that make up his personality, these are not eternal, there is no continuous self. The to verse is common in Buddhist teaching and the Buddha is often said to have off the cuff verses. It explains that just as ‘chariot’ is used to describe joined wood, names and the ‘self’ are only used to describe a collection of impermanent forces, they are useful for nothing more than convenience. The end verse of phrase for Nagasena is also common, and can mostly be pinned down as advertising on the behalf of Buddhist monks, the King praising Buddhism would make it seem more positive to converts.
This section is very important in the Buddhist teachings and one of the best explanations of the very complicated ‘no-self’ doctrine, it is also an example of the Buddhist teaching in relation to a more western background and therefore attempts to answer some of the questions that people born outside of the Buddhist tradition would have difficulty understanding. It has many examples of writing styles that are closely associated with the Buddhist doctrine the slightly repetitive speech that has its genesis in the oral tradition and the use of verse and analogy are Buddhist traits.

Damien Largey, for Maljonic's Dreams.