Buddhism & the No-soul Doctrine

An Esoteric Perspective – Feb 2010

Leoni Hodgson, PMAFA, MSE (Psych), PhD Esotericism

 [This is version 3, the Alagaddupama Sutta has been added.]

 

There are many who do not identify specifically with the Buddhist religion, but nonetheless hold Gautama Buddha and his world mission, in the highest regard. His teachings, specifically the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, his effect for good upon the human consciousness – all these elevate Gautama Buddha to the status of being one of the greatest spiritual Messengers the world has ever known.

Having said that, many people whose understandings are based on Deity and soul, are bemused about the Buddhist no-soul and no-Creator doctrines.  What is it that the great Teacher is supposed to have said and is there some way the Buddhist and occult or esoteric teachings (as through the writings of Helena Blavatsky and Alice Bailey whose work is based on ancient wisdom lore – or “Esoteric Buddhism”, can be reconciled? In this article I have compared Buddhist and esoteric doctrine, and have examined a few important Buddhist “no-Soul” suttas – from an esoteric perspective, in an attempt to throw light upon this subject.

Points covered:

•   Comparisons between Buddhist and Occult Laws.

•   Atman and soul defined.

•   Gautama Buddha

•   Three Buddhist branches

•   Buddhist views of no-soul and no-Creator

•   The Nirvana Sutra

 

1. Buddhist Laws and their Occult equivalents:

Most of the principles upon which Buddhism is based are also fundamentals of esoteric lore. In the following list, five of the six principles are held as truths in both schools of thought.

1a. Buddhist Principle: The Buddhist Law of Change or Impermanence. all that exists lives and dies. Infinite numbers of universes, emerge, endure, and die, only to be reborn.

1b. Esoteric Principle: The Law of Periodicity: for every period of activity there is a consequent interval of rest, observable in nature as day and night, the flow and ebb of tides, waking and sleeping, birth and death.[1]  This law applies to all life on earth as well to the birth and death of universes.

2a. Buddhist Principle: The Law of Dependent Origination. all phenomena depend upon a number of causal and connected factors. Nothing can exist by itself and be its own cause. This is the natural law of nature. Life alone is continuous, and he who clings to any form, will suffer by resisting the flow

2b. Esoteric Principle: The Law of Periodicity: The Secret Doctrine teaches the progressive development of everything, worlds as well as atoms; this stupendous development has neither conceivable beginning nor imaginable end. Our “Universe” is only one of an infinite number of Universes [all] links in the great Cosmic chain of Universes, each one standing in the relation of an effect as regards its predecessor, and being a cause as regards its successor.[2]

3a. Buddhist Principle: The Doctrine of Emptiness. all forms and Reality itself, are empty – void, but this state holds within itself [unknown potential]. (The words 'unknown potential' seem to best describe the esoteric description for 'Emptiness'. LH)

3b. Esoteric Principle: In Helena Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine, a state called Absolute Consciousness equates to the Buddhist ‘emptiness’. Blavatsky said that in the rest period between universes (pralaya), there are no bodies or forms available to give Absolute Consciousness form, so it is described as being empty.

“.. during Pralaya.. there is nothing to receive and reflect the ideation of the Absolute Mind (Consciousness); therefore, it is not.. destroy the vessel, and—to our perceptions.. nothing exists. Therefore.. “Universal Mind was not,” because there was no vehicle to contain it.”[3]

Very advanced beings model the abstract parent. When all form limitations have been stripped away, what remains is pure spiritual potential.

4a. Buddhist Principle: The Law of Karma. it governs rebirth. According to one’s thoughts and actions, people are reborn in one of six different realms. This is Samsara, the cycle of suffering and rebirth.

4b. i. Esoteric Principle (1): The Law of Periodicity: stresses the need for constant renewal, “reincarnation being but one phase of the Doctrine of Constant Renewal.” [4] 

4b. Ii. Esoteric Principle (2): The Doctrine of Balance or Harmony (the Law of Karma). [This] is a fundamental aspect of the Divine Plan.. if this harmony should be disturbed.. there must be of necessity an inherent urge to restore the disturbed harmony.” [5]

5a. Buddhist Principle: The Ultimate Reality is Unity of Mind – Nirvana. The ultimate state of impersonal wisdom and compassion, is Dharmakaya (Mahayana), the “original clear light of mind” wisdom and emptiness. Overcoming Samsara and reaching this level of ‘Buddahood’, is the Buddhist goal.

5b. Esoteric Principle: The Law of Essential Unity: “every entity lives its life in the field or sphere of a greater being .. the beings forming the universe and living in it are all linked together because of a common bond of origin.” [6]

Nirvana: is not a locality. It is the state of the beings in those respective spiritual conditions.. “the nirvanic state or condition may be attained by great.. sages, such as Gautama the Buddha .. all the lower personal part of him is become thoroughly impersonalized, the personal has put on the garment of impersonality, and such a man thereafter lives in the nirvanic condition of the spiritual monad. [7]

6. Buddhist Principle: The no-God, no-Soul, Doctrine: God is denied in mainstream Buddhism. This is the major difference between Occult and Buddhist thought.

6a. Buddhists do not believe in the concept “Deity” (divine nature), but they do believe that the universe is governed by the laws of nature.

6b. Occultists believe the two cannot be separated, they are both the same thing.

6c. Buddhists view the God concept as introducing an arbitrary element into an otherwise orderly universe, as an interference or aberration in nature.

6d. Occultists view the cycles of nature as the Laws of the governing Deity. Perhaps Buddhists would have less aversion to the Occult view of Deity, than they would to the interceding Jewish Jehovah, or God of Christian fundamentalism.

7a. Buddhist Principle: the Doctrine of Emptiness. Another major stumbling block relates to this doctrine. This is previously described as ‘unknown or spiritual potential’. But some exoteric Buddhists seem to have taken this literally, and claim this state of Being is in fact just ‘empty’. A creative and conscious Deity does not fit well with this idea.

7b. Blavatsky called the forces and laws responsible for the workings of the universe, the Unknowable Deity. A force which gives its Life or Breath to form, but remains always above and unaffected by the activities and changes taking place within that form-life.

“Having pervaded the universe with a fragment of Myself, I remain.” [8]

 

2. Brahman, Atman and Soul defined

Obedient to the Law that “the part must follow the same pattern that the whole follows”1, in the universe we find reflections of the Unknowable Deity:

1. Brahman (Paramatman). The Supreme Hierarch of a universe [9]; breathing life and ordered motion into the universal form. In very simple terms, this is the highest level God/ Spirit/ Intelligence, Universal Spirit – “from whom all things proceed, to whom all things return”. Periodically, it incarnates and experiences life through a universe, then periodically it is not in incarnation, and so on. While in incarnation, it remains observing as the universe births, grows and then dies on its in-breath.

Like the Sun radiating millions of sunbeams, Paramatman breathes forth Atman.

2. Atman – the Monad [10]: Atman is the spiritual Self, a ray of lighted energy emanating from Brahman, the spiritual potency or God-Spark in man which Theosophists call the Monad. Universal, it declares “I am one with All.”

Atman is, the living presence of Brahman in the universe. It is to man what Brahman is to the universe – Atman is a tiny individual spark, Brahman is the collective universal fire. Atman overshadows man, radiating its light – through Buddhi the Spiritual Soul, which reflects it on to the Human Soul.

Although Atman or the Monad is described as being “immortal”, this is a relative term. It persists as long as Brahman is ‘resident’ in the universe – experiencing life through various levels of forms, which continuously live and die. When Brahman withdraws at the conclusion of a universe, the spiritual ray which is Atman, is withdrawn – Brahman detaches from matter, it pulls out its “anchors”.

3. The Human Soul. Atman is often interpreted as “the soul”, but technically this is incorrect.  Soul is the product or child of Spirit (Atman) and Matter. It is intelligent wisdom and love, the consciousness aspect which arises in all form life, and at first identifies with its physical body.

The Human Soul experiences life on earth through the outer sense vehicles, and each life should see it increase its knowledge, wisdom and understanding. It is the evolving intelligent-self which persists through incarnations. Then the day comes when this evolving consciousness, Self-realises. Identification then is no longer in the world of form, but is made with the Spiritual Life. This is soul-enlightenment [3^rd Initiation of Transfiguration], Then the soul or causal body is discarded, as consciousness is absorbed into the Oversoul which breathed it forth originally.

Poetically we could say that Atman seeks experience in the deep reaches of the universe. So it builds a chariot, and this enables it to experience life, and reach places it could not otherwise go. The chariot is the soul.

Soul defined 1: Soul signifies “vehicle,” any vehicle in which the Monad (Atman), in any sphere of manifestation, is working out its destiny. A soul is an entity which is evolved by experiences; it is not a spirit, but it is a vehicle of a spirit.“ ^[11]

Soul defined 2: “[Soul].. is a fragment of the Oversoul, a spark of the one Flame (Brahman-Atman LH), imprisoned in the body.  It is that life aspect which gives to.. all forms in manifestation.. being and consciousness. It is that integrating coherent something which makes the human being a thinking, feeling and aspiring entity. [12]I

‡ Whether Atman (atta in Pali) is spirit or Soul,
it is denied by Buddhists in their anatman or anatta doctrines.

As an aside, astute students will notice that Buddhist and esoteric
teachings are virtually identical if the interim period of the evolution of the soul
is omitted. The beginning and the end are the same. Man starts his journey  
ignorant, and he ends it enlightened and supernal.

In the Ageless Wisdom teachings, there is an ordered and sequential development to soul consciousness, which is achieved as it reincarnates from life to life. Atman works firstly with a soul in the Mineral Kingdom, then in the vegetable, animal and then human. This progression sees the gradual expansion of consciousness – more spirit awareness, less ignorance. This progression continues into superhuman levels, until – with all impurities removed, soul reaches its parent Atman (impersonal Monadic awareness). (Nirvana).

In Buddhism, there is no equivalent progression. On the Wheel of Samsara, “gross” mind is reborn again and again, into a realm which is dependent upon the last thoughts of the previous incarnation. Since there is no storehouse of soul knowledge and wisdom carried over from life to life, it is clear that the leap from ignorance to enlightenment must be achieved in one incarnation.

This seems to be a major flaw in the no-soul argument. Starting from scratch – from gross ignorance (unintelligent, undeveloped, unspiritual), and emptying the vaults of karma accumulated over thousands of lives in one incarnation? In the author’s opinion, at humanity’s current level of spiritual growth, this is impossible.

The doctrine of the evolution of the Soul explains why men are so different, and while same men are monsters and others are saints. But all so-called “monsters” will eventually become saints through the evolutionary process of the soul. It explains also why some men and women will achieve enlightenment – in one life. They have expanded as souls over lives to the point that they are illumined souls, and this opens the doorway of opportunity to them for enlightenment to take place in one incarnation.

Enlightenment as understood in Buddhism, is a vastly higher occurrence than the soul-enlightenment (3^rd transfiguration initiation) of esoteric teachings. “Entering into Nirvana”, refers to identification with the pure originating Self or Atman, the Monad. This is the Nirvanic realm.

‡ Enlightenment (bodhi), and Nirvana: Enlightenment is achieved with the disappearance of the ego. On attaining Enlightenment, one is freed from the cycle of birth, suffering, death and rebirth (Samsara), and enters into Nirvana – the realization of the true nature of the mind; the ultimate state of impersonal wisdom and compassion. ^Wikipedia

 

3. Background to Gautama Buddha, and how the No-Soul teaching arose

The following information comes from Helena Blavatsky’s ‘Collected Writings’. Blavatsky (HPB) was of the opinion that – for various reasons, Buddha deliberately cultivated a no-soul attitude in his teachings.

Gautama was born Hindu, and received esoteric training in the old Brahmanical secret Schools – whose roots are founded in pre-Vedic Wisdom. From these Indian Sages he learned the truths of emptiness, the impermanence of material life, and spiritual development techniques. All students of these schools vow not to reveal the Esoteric Doctrines imparted to them, but in his compassion for man and in order to help him, Buddha violated this.

“In his immense pity for the ignorance, and.. sufferings of mankind, desirous though he was to keep inviolate his sacred vows, he failed.. While constructing his Exoteric Philosophy (the “Eye-Doctrine”) on the foundations of eternal Truth, he failed to conceal certain dogmas, and trespassing beyond the lawful lines, caused those dogmas to be misunderstood. In his anxiety to make away with the false Gods, he revealed in the “Seven Paths to Nirvana” some of the mysteries of the Seven Lights of the Arupa (formless) World. [13]

It appears that Gautama was so anxious to help man free himself from false Gods and the power of corrupt religious organisations, he gave out truths about the formless world of Monadic existence – the level of pure spiritual awareness which lies way beyond the three worlds of human endeavour. This was the goal to aim for.

While this is a truth, this goal is way beyond the reach of ordinary man. Only the very advanced – Masters and Chohans, have raised their consciousness high enough so that they can aspire to reach this even higher level. Other mortals are instructed to raise consciousness from the mental level to the soul. This is the half-way point to the Monadic world.

Blavatsky said that advanced teaching was given out prematurely, and was misunderstood. Students were given a vision of the formless Monadic world, before they could build the equipment to reach it. The whole process of the Soul journey – the continuous expansion of consciousness across lives until enlightenment is reached, was omitted. This situation can be likened to an astronaut told he has to fly directly to the heart of the universe when the technology of his spaceship barely allows him to break free of the Earth’s atmosphere.

From these factors, and ambiguities found in some Buddhist scriptures, the no-soul, no-creator belief has arisen.

HPB said that the new doctrine given out by Gautama without the
interim period of Soul vivification, was never correctly understood. The teaching
gave the most sublime code of ethics and an unparalleled philosophy of material life,
but its major shortcoming was that it misguided immature minds into believing
there was nothing more under the outward mantle of the system. [14]

“[The] metaphysics of Gautama, which, stripped in their exoteric garb of every soul-vivifying hope, transcendental aspiration and symbol, appear in their cold wisdom like crystalline icicles, the skeletons of the primeval truths of Esoteric Philosophy… [15]

The Brahmin’s jealously reserved occult knowledge as the right of their caste. To his credit, Buddha broke this rule, admitting all castes to the path of adeptship, based on merit. It earned him great hostility however, and he was driven out of India by the enraged Brahmin’s.

On the positive side, when one looks at religious intolerance in the world today, caused through immature minds misinterpreting the scriptures, perhaps Buddha’s lack of emphasis upon God was one of his greatest gift to man. With one sweeping stroke he stripped away all religious superstition. He gave spiritual disciplines which would take its practitioners straight to Nirvana, without the need to make supplication to God through priests. The Renaissance period which broke the hold of religious superstition in the west occurred two thousand years later.

After his death, Blavatsky wrote that Buddha rejected Nirvana, and was reborn later as Samkara / Samkaracharya.[16] His goal was to tidy up his previous work.

“Fifty odd years after his death “the great Teacher” having refused full Dharmakaya and Nirvana, was pleased, for purposes of Karma and philanthropy, to be reborn.. as Samkara.. the greatest Vedantic teacher of India, whose philosophy.. finds itself in the middle ground between the [metaphysics of the Brahman’s and Gautama].. The object he had in view was to fill up some gaps and repair certain errors in his own previous teaching.” [17]

 

4. Main Buddhist branches

a.     Theraveda (Teaching of the Elders, or the Ancient Teaching) is the oldest surviving Buddhist school. [Around 250 BC]. The ultimate goal is to personally reach enlightenment and Nirvana.

b.    Mahayana Buddhism (Sk. “Greater Vehicle”) Mahayanist’s believe their sutras are the more advanced doctrines, reserved for those who follow the bodhisattva path. The ultimate goal is to be reborn in order to help all other sentient beings reach Nirvana.

c.     Tibetan Buddhism [Vajrayana/ Tantric/ Esoteric Buddhism] An extension of Mahayana, it differs only in the adoption of additional techniques in order to accelerate the process of awakening. This is the branch which HH the Dalai Lama belongs to.

 

5. Buddhist view # 1: “Buddha said the Soul does not exist.”

Since Theraveda Buddhism neither affirms nor denies the existence of self, this view commonly called anatta – the no-soul doctrine, must emanate primarily from Mahayana followers. The following examples are typical of this widely held view.

1. “The Buddha taught that what we conceive as something eternal within us, is merely a combination of physical and mental aggregates (skandhas).. These forces are working together in a flux of momentary change; they are never the same for two consecutive moments.. When the Buddha analyzed the psycho-physical life, he found only these five aggregates. He did not find any eternal soul. However, many people still have the misconception that the soul is the consciousness. The Buddha declared in unequivocal terms that consciousness depends on [skandhas] and that it cannot exist independently of them.” [18]www.purifymind.com

* Skandhas: the five aggregates  of ‘self’: 1 Form; 2 feelings, sensations; 3 perceptions, thoughts. These lead to 4 will and action, (resulting in karma), and 5 consciousness. [19]

2.  “Individuals consist of a “bundle” of habits (skandhas), which together delude one into thinking that he or she consists of a stable, lasting self. This self is impermanent, it is not eternal, nor does it survive the dissolution of the aggregate when karma is exhausted. No self exists apart from the temporary arrangement of material factors.” [20]

These opinions are largely based upon the following sutra, which is important because it is the only recorded passage in which Gautama is directly asked, what anatta means. It is the most quoted scripture which is used to justify the no ‘soul’ or ‘self’ (atta) claim.

Samyutta Nikaya 3.196

“At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?” “Just this Radha, form is not the Soul (anatta), sensations are not the Soul (anatta), perceptions are not the Soul (anatta), assemblages are not the Soul (anatta), consciousness is not the Soul (anatta)..” [21]

Here Gautama states that the five aggregates or skandhas with which the unlearned man identifies, are not the Soul. In itself, the scripture does not negate the Soul, or disqualify the Atman (Soul) principle. But that is exactly what supporters of this argument claim. Read the following from author, Sayadaw Silananda:

“Coomaraswamy and Horner (authors), claim that Buddha was only directing us not to see the real Self in the personal ego – a view identical to the Hindu view. But let us say, for the sake of argument, that I have five animal horns here. If I say “None of these horns is the horn of a rabbit,” does it mean that there exists somewhere else or in another form such a thing as a horn of a rabbit? No. A horn of a rabbit is just a designation, an abstraction, without any corresponding reality. Similarly Buddha often said, “This is not atta. That is not atta. Nothing here is atta.” Does that indicate that Buddha means that there exists somewhere something that can be called atta? No.” [22]

This seems a silly argument, especially in light of the fact that Mr. Silananda knows the term atta is used affirmatively in other sutras.

In the absence of any clear direction regarding self, some scholars have drawn the conclusion that, “Buddha meant that self does not exist”. In some people’s minds, this has migrated into “Buddha said that self does not exist”. But in fact, Buddha did not say this directly.

|| In summary: the Samyutta Nikaya, the most widely touted
“evidence’ which “proves” the soul does not exist, does nothing of the sort.
It just states categorically, what soul or self is not.

5a. On one occasion, Gautama refused to answer metaphysical questions

The next script is another famous one. It is from the Pali Canon, and is one of the few recorded occasions that Buddha was asked directly to answer metaphysical questions. In the previous script, Buddha took great pains to point out what the ‘self’ was not. In this one he refuses to answer.

The Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta SN 44.8

Vacchagotta, asks Gautama whether he holds particular views on the cosmos, the relationship between soul, mind and body, and the nature of a Tathagata’s existence after death. Gautama’s only response to all these questions is “no”. He refuses to elaborate, explaining that each question leads to an unresolvable thicket of views which will cause suffering and distress if investigated. Because such investigation cannot lead to enlightened understanding and nirvana, the Buddha takes no position on these subjects. The Tathagata is released due to true discernment and cessation of clinging [23]

Tathagata (Sanskrit). “One who is like the coming”; he who is, like his predecessors (the Buddha’s) and successors, the coming future Buddha or World-Saviour. One of the titles of Gautama Buddha, and the highest epithet, since the first and the last Buddha’s were the direct immediate avatars of the One Deity. ^[24]www.experiencefestival.com

Buddha when presented with the question about the existence or non-existence of the self, said that it was a question best left alone – to worry about such a notion would ultimately lead to a stressful life of unease and unrest. Vacchagotta was described as “a wanderer,” and there is an opinion that he was not ready, or spiritually developed enough to be able to understand such metaphysical notions. Whether this is true or not, what is apparent is that Buddha did not want Vacchagotta to fill his head with matters which would distract him from the first task which all beginners on the Path of Spiritual Development need to address – dis-identification from the false ego.

5b. Rather than no-self, is Buddha teaching a not-self  strategy?

Some scholars believe that the real lesson being offered in the previous sutras, is a strategy in dealing with the cause of suffering – the false self and its proclivities. In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, and adopting a dispassionate view. (Thanissaro Bhikkhu).

This strategy is employed in Hinduism, particularly in Jnana Yoga and Advaita Vedanta. ‘Neti neti’ is a chant meaning “not this, not that”. It is usually preceded by the question “Who am I?” Then neti neti is applied to all that stands between the returning pilgrim (soul), and his source (Atman). It is claimed by some to be a rapid path to enlightenment.

The Four Noble Truths – the ultimate Not-Self strategy. “This world is a place of suffering, its cause is desire, release comes through cessation of desire, follow the path which leads to release.”

The teaching instruction contained in the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta is clear, focus upon the Four Noble Truths, and leave all metaphysical ponderings and religious arguments behind. This is advice which many would benefit from.

|| In summary, the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta does not state that God
or the soul does not exist. Buddha refused to answer such questions,
and gave instead a strategy for dealing with suffering.

5c. In the next Alagaddupama Sutta, Gautama takes great pains to point out what “self” is or is not.

The Alagaddupama Sutta. MN22.

The first part of the sutta is a discourse about clinging to views. Its central message is conveyed in two similes – the water-snake (which is about the danger of misinterpreting the Dhamma); and a raft (which is about using the Dhamma appropriately to cross worldly desire). The remainder of the discourse focuses on the teaching of not-self which is the section of interest. A condensed version of this part of the sutta (from Thanissaro Bhikkhu [25], [edited by LH]) is as follows:

Gautama instructs his monks: "[If the view of] self or what belongs to self [is not] truth or reality, then [surely] the view that - “This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity” – Isn't it utterly and completely a fool's teaching?"

This section of the teaching is summarised by Gautama: "Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form/ feeling/ perception/ fabrications/ consciousness, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

What Gautama says is clear, and there is no argument with the view he puts forward regarding “self”. The esoteric view is that at some point in time Brahman withdraws from the universe, so that ultimately all form and self are impermanent. When the term “immortal” is used with regards to Atman (and even sometimes the soul) in the Ageless Wisdom, it is used in relation to the quick changing incarnations through the sense vehicles – within the period in which a universe is in existence. In relation to Brahman, Atman and the soul are definitely impermanent. Likewise, in relation to Parabrahman – that which is beyond the universe, Brahman is impermanent.

|| In summary, the Alagaddupama Sutta states that ultimately
there is nothing in the universe which is permanent and eternal,
and the Ageless Wisdom agrees with this.

 

6. Buddhist view # 2: there is no reincarnating soul.

This is the position taken by most Buddhists, based on their interpretation of the teachings. Buddhism says that it is the mind aspect of the skandhas which rebirths time and again.

Here are examples of this point of view:

1. “.. the idea of a subjective Soul or Self which survives transmigration .. [this concept] the Buddha explicitly rejects. What is normally thought of as the “self” is in fact an agglomeration of constantly changing physical and mental constituents (“skandhas”). Wikipedia

2. ”.. It is the mind that reincarnates.. When one dies, the mind separates from the physical form.. and continues into another form.. Most importantly no metaphysical entity no soul, and no kind of spiritual self continues from one existence to another.. When the mind of the person is enlightened, this stream ceases. The self is extinguished, and all elements of the skandhas dissolve. Wikipedia.

3. “If one understands the term “soul” as a continuum of individuality from moment to moment, from lifetime to lifetime, then one can say that Buddhism also accepts a concept of soul; there is a kind of continuum of consciousness… However.. there is no eternal, unchanging, abiding, permanent self called “soul.” That is what is being denied in Buddhism. [26] DL, Healing Anger

The Anattalakkhana Sutta is another famous sutra which has been used to justify the no-soul view. It differs from the previous sutra examples, in that it briefly describes the enlightenment process. Buddha is addressing a group of monks at Benares.

Anattalakkhana Sutta SN 22.59

Monks – form, feeling, perception, consciousness, all these are not self. Is that which is impermanent, painful, and subject to change, fit to be regarded as my-self? No. Any kind of form, whether gross or subtle must be regarded as not myself.’ When the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones, detaches from the skandhas, passion fades out and he is liberated. With full release, there is the knowledge, ‘Fully released.’ He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.” [27]

‡ The sutta tells us that “ the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones, detaches from the skandhas..” But this concept is a major contradiction, because the only ‘self’ mainstream Buddhism acknowledges, is the mind-consciousness of the skandhas. And if it is not having the “Ah-ha I must arise and return to Unity” moment, then who is?

6a. Theravedic View    

Theraveda doesn’t seem to have any direct link between Nirvana and skandhas-mind. It acknowledges that skandhas mind eventually is eliminated, it does not accept or reject ‘self’, it describes enlightenment as “a mental state where conditioning, defilement and suffering are abolished.” So how does enlightenment occur? I found these two explanations:

1.  “There is no atta or self which realises Nibbana (Nirvana).  What realizes Nibbana is insight-wisdom.. It is not the property of a personal or universal self, but is rather a power developed through meditative penetration of phenomena.” [28] (Silananda)

 2. “You become more enlightened every time you accept the facts that you find when you look honestly into yourself. You become more endarkened (ignorant and dissatisfied) every time you ignore or reject these facts.” [29]

Silananda takes great pains to dismiss ‘self’, then goes on to describe a mysterious developing “power” and “insight-wisdom” as a result of meditation. Hunt rightly points out the benefit of looking honestly into oneself. But both of them do not address the fact that the only mechanism available to bring about this magical effect is poor, lowly skandhas mind. It cannot be transformed into something higher, because we are told it does not survive the dissolution of the aggregates. There is no suggestion it is rehabilitated. But both testify to the fact that something does grow and evolve. Occultists call it ‘soul’ – Buddhists go into denial.

6b. Mahayana View

This view is different. Mahayana posits two main types of mind. The first is the gross and deluded mind of the skandhas, used to survive in daily life. The second is called (very) subtle mind – the Buddha nature, Dharmakaya, clear light, the pure nature of mind. (Not acknowledged by Theraveda). It is a continuum, having no beginning and no end. A fragment of Dharmakaya resides in all beings, and this is what makes enlightenment possible.

“The Buddha-potential abides within us all. It is what makes enlightenment and the attainment of omniscience possible.” [30]

This inner radiance becomes manifest only when the gross mind has ceased to function. For example, when the body disintegrates at death (gross mind dissolves into subtle mind), or when enlightenment (Buddhahood) occurs. This latter is a process of uncovering this inherent nature – through meditation and yogic techniques. The Dalai Lama describes the process this way:

“The state of Buddhahood does not come spontaneously – it demands a voluntary development of the mind.. All Buddha’s … were once like us. They were in the same state of consciousness that we are now in. Then, little by little, progressing on the path, gradually stripping away all their imperfections, developing virtuous qualities one by one, they finally became Buddha’s.” [31]

To the occultist this all sounds suspiciously like the divine Trinity. We have a God Spirit (Budda), a suffering ego, and a soul within (subtle mind). But the Dalai Lama firmly dispels this notion:

“There is no eternal, unchanging, abiding, permanent self called ‘soul.’ That is what is being denied in Buddhism.” (See previous quote).

And the Occultist will agree when these descriptions are applied to soul. Soul is more correctly defined (esoterically) as “an entity which is evolved by experiences“. In the previous quote, if Buddhahood is replaced with Atman (by means of atma-buddhi), the method of progression given by the Dalai Lama is identical to that of the journeying soul.

But let us examine exactly what has been said here, because it raises questions. A seed of Dharmakaya – subtle-mind, exists in all beings. By gradually stripping away all imperfections and developing virtues, subtle mind is fully revealed, resulting in enlightenment. This does not sound l ke a one-life task, but this must be exactly what HH means. Otherwise, we have the phenomena of subtle mind (soul) evolving from life to life (along with skandhas mind), and if so, the whole no-soul concept is discredited.

|| In summary, all Buddhist descriptions of the enlightenment process
- the dissolution of the skandhas ego, expansion into a higher state of awareness
or Mind, etc., all dove-tail with the esoteric understanding of the expansion of the soul in man.

The soul progresses from an animal instictiveness, to the truly intelligent human soul, into the intuitiveness of buddhi, into spiritual or Atmic awareness, and finally back to Atman (Monad), the (Nirvana level of being). A bit more detail, but the ultimate result is the same. If the word soul is omitted, and the detail not quibbled over, the two philosophies can be reconciled.

 

7. Buddhist view # 3: there is no God

The no-God, no-Creator belief is fundamental to mainstream Buddhist thought.

The following examples are typical of this view:

1. “Much of Buddhist philosophy is actually opposed to the idea of creation by a supreme being. This is because it would introduce an arbitrary element (will of a creator) into an otherwise orderly universe.” [32]n

2. In Buddhism, there is no Supreme Being named that is the creator of all. However Gautama Buddha does state that our thoughts make the world. We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world.” [33]

3. The theory of first cause asserts that God comes first, and creates everything. This violates the Buddhist Law of Dependent Origination, which posits that all phenomena depend upon a number of causal and connected factors. Nothing can exist by itself and be its own (first) cause.

[From the Occult perspective, this “first-cause God” claim is incorrect. The Law of Periodicity clearly states that “Our “Universe” is only one of an infinite number of Universes, all linked, without beginning or end.”

There is a “First Logos” - sometimes called “first cause” [34], responsible for initiating each new universe. But ultimately it is just another link in a chain of universes. Again, the Unknowable Deity or Space, is sometimes called a first cause. [35] Nothing really is known about this mysterious something, but there is no doubt that it too is subject to the law that “the part must follow the same pattern that the whole follows”, and it too, is probably one of numberless such Deities.]

4. “.. causes have no beginning. If there were a beginning to the universe, there would also have to be a beginning to consciousness. If we accepted a beginning to consciousness, we would also have to accept that its cause has a beginning.. If consciousness had arisen without cause, or from a permanent cause, that cause would have to exist on a permanent basis always, or not exist at all, ever. The fact that a phenomenon exists intermittently proves that it depends on causes and conditions. When all the conditions are met, the phenomenon is produced. When those conditions are absent or incomplete, the phenomenon does not appear. As causes have no beginning and stretch back to infinity, the same thing must apply for living beings. Creation is therefore not possible. [36]

5. “..Dharmakaya.. this ultimate source.. is close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether they belong to Samsara or nirvana, originate therein. But we must be careful in speaking of this source, we must not be led into error [by thinking that it is] analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma(n).. We must not deify this luminous space.. when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual level.” [37]

This last quote is from the Dalai Lama and HH seems to infer that Dharmakaya is a collection of individual points of light (individual consciousnesses), and is not to be considered a composite whole (or Supreme Consciousness). If this is what he meant, then it dismisses the ‘holism’ concept – “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” While each of the individual parts of an organism have meaning on their own, there is an integrated purpose which is entirely different to and greater than, any of the parts.

This holism concept underlies the Buddhist Sangha idea of monastic life, which is said to provide the environment most conducive for advancement toward enlightenment. The thought behind this is – if you put a lot of holy people together in one place, the combined energies and integrated life of that community, is like a spiritual accelerant, enabling the individual to progress faster than would otherwise be the case. Then again, Nirvana (Monadic Essence) could be considered a super-Sangha, containing as it does the collective wisdom of the Buddha’s, and therefore “greater than the sum of its parts.”

Similarly, the monad is monadic essence or a ray of the infinite Boundless (Paramatman), which is composed of infinite multiplicity in unity. [38]

The Mahayana Lankavatara Sutra has helped influence this no-Creator point of view.

There is a section within it which states that any belief in a sovereign God is an illusion, in fact, any attachment to the concept of “God” can be an impediment to perfection.

 Lankavatara Sutra

“All such notions as causation, succession, atoms, primary elements, that make up personality, personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind… No, [Buddha]hood is not the same as the philosopher’s Atman.” [39]

That seems clear enough. But in the “Sagathakam” section of this same sutra, the previous statement is contradicted. Buddha talks of the reality of the pure Self (atman), equating it with the Tathagatagarbha (Buddha-Essence). There are several verses proclaiming “self’ as being right and good, in fact “an entire rhetoric” say Hubbard and Swanson in their book ‘Pruning the Bodhi Tree’. The following is perhaps the clearest example:

746: “The atma [Self] characterised with purity is the state of self-realisation; this is the Tathagatagarbha, which does not belong to the realm of the theorisers.“ [Suzuki translation] [40]

When such contradictions are found in the same text, it is Buddhist tradition that both opinions be open to interpretation.

The Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical examination. If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be able to interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an “interpretable” sutra.”  [41]

Hence the dismissal of the passages in the Sagathakam sutra, which seem to provide evidence that ‘self-Atman’ exists.

 

8. The Nirvana Sutra provides conclusive evidence of higher Self.

The Mahaparinirvana or Nirvana Sutra (Mahayana) teaches the reality of the Self, and contains no such contradictions or ambiguities. [Recommended website www.nirvanasutra.org.uk, DrTony Page].

Allegedly delivered on the last day of Buddha’s life, it is said to be the key to Buddhism and corrects misunderstandings arising from earlier teachings regarding the Self.

“..this cultivation of non-Self is [a] cognitive distortion.. When I have taught non-Self, fools uphold the teaching that there is no Self. The wise.. are free from doubts.” [42] Tibetan version

Gautama is unequivocal in his assertion that eternal Self exists, and this is made very clear in the following verse, one in which he also assigns qualities to the Self.

“..it is said that all dharma’s [things, phenomena] are devoid of Self. [But actually] it is not true.. The Self is Reality, the Self is unchanging, the Self is virtue, the Self is eternal, the Self is unshakable/ firm, the Self is peace..” [43] Tibetan version

And in the final verse selected from this sutra – the Dharmakshema version, Buddha equates ‘Atman’ the Self, with the Tathagata / Buddha/ Dharmakaya.

“The constant presence / abiding of the Tathagata is called ‘the Self’ [atman]. The Dharmakaya [essential being of the Buddha] is unbounded, unimpeded, neither arising nor perishing..”  [44] Dharmakshema version

If this were not enough, the Buddhist tantric scripture entitled Chanting the Names of Mañjusri, as quoted by the great Tibetan Buddhist master, Dolpopa, repeatedly exalts the Self and applies the following terms to Dharmakaya:

Pervasive Lord, Buddha-Self, the beginningless Self, the Self of primordial purity, Source of all, the Self pervading all, the Single Self, the Diamond Self, the Supreme Self. [45]

But still this is not enough to convince the doubters. Some advocates of the no-Creator belief, when commenting on the Nirvana Sutra, say that when the Buddha speaks of the Atman, he is only doing so in a concessionary manner, in a provisional, tactical manoeuvre for those of his students who are not yet ready to face up to the frightening enormity of the non-Self and Emptiness doctrines, and that what he really wishes to say is that there actually exists no Self at all. And so the argument persists, with diverse opinions, as the Dalai Lama acknowledges:

“.. we find some Tibetan scholars, such as the Sakya master Rendawa, who accept that there is such a thing as self or soul, the “kangsak ki dak”. However, the same word, the “kangsak ki dak,” the self, or person, or personal self, or identity, is at the same time denied by many other scholars. We find diverse opinions, even among Buddhist scholars, as to what exactly the nature of self is, what exactly that thing or entity is that continues from one moment to the next moment, from one lifetime to the next lifetime.” [46]

The ‘no God-Creator opinion, is not universal in Buddhism. This is especially so amongst East Asian Buddhists. In fact, even though Buddhism is considered by many to be atheistic, writers have observed a religious and worshipful type of trend appearing in modern times, towards the Bodhisattva and Buddha.

“.. the idea of God is not absent from Buddhism, when understood as ultimate, true Reality.. Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God, the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists. However, the followers of Buddhism usually avoid the term God, for it savors so much of Christianity, whose spirit is not always exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation of religious experience… An equivalent most commonly used is Dharmakaya… When the Dharmakaya is most concretely conceived it becomes the Buddha, or Tathagata.” [47]

Bringing this investigation to a conclusion, I include the following words
from the Dalai Lama, who brings us all down to earth regarding the debate, and
who points to the only really important thing that matters in the long run.

“Different religions have different views.. But it does not matter, as all religions are meant to help in bringing about a better world with better and happier human beings. On this level.. all religions have the same goal and the same potential. Take the concepts of the creator and self-creation.. they have the same purpose. To some, the concept of the creator is very powerful in .. becoming a good person with a sense of love, forgiveness and devotion to the ultimate truth – the Creator or God.. The other concept is self-creation.. One’s future is entirely dependent on oneself: it is self-created. This concept is very powerful in encouraging an individual to be a good and honest person.. the two are different approaches but have the same goal. [48]

 

9. In Summary.

The no-Self belief is deeply entrenched in mainstream Buddhism, a resistance which is understandable, given the fact that Buddha deliberately cultivated such a culture. Primarily, it is thought, to help his students avoid the messiness which can occur in religions, when true teachings are distorted, and corruption taints the priestly orders.

He wanted his teachings to be available to those who merited them, as this was not possible in his day. It appears he also wanted to cut out the “middle-man” (religious officiator, or false God) who so often became an obstruction to enlightenment, rather than a facilitator of the process. This would have the added advantage of speeding up the enlightenment process. In the author’s opinion, one of the things especially appealing about Buddhism is that its cultivation seems to get rid of the ego faster.  

Generally, mainstream Buddhist teachings appear to leap from lower mind consciousness, to the Monadic level (Nirvana). They deny that there is a growing, evolving reincarnating ‘Self’ called Soul. But this no-soul aspect of the Buddhist teachings seems to have been intended primarily for beginners to the Path, and a ploy to help them bypass religious dogmatism, and keep them concentrating on their spiritual disciplines. For the more advanced, for those ready for the esoteric approach, the Mahayana teachings were given out – and in the Nirvana Sutra, Self, Atman (and his parent Paramatman), are restored. To their rightful position the Occultist would say. The acceptance of Atman, implies the acceptance of the chariot of Atman – the Soul.

“The Self (Atman) is reality, the Self is permanent, the Self is virtue, the Self is eternal, the Self is stable, the Self is peace.”

Based upon all this, when Buddha said “rely only on yourself” in his final sermon, I believe he did not mean, “because there is no Atman or God”. He was highlighting the need to personally attend to one’s own liberation, and that in the final analysis, we all reach Nirvana (the Atmic level), based upon our own efforts.

But his real underlying message I believe is “rely only on your (Atman) Self.” Remember that the Nirvana Sutra was supposedly given out in this period, so the topic of ‘Self’ would have been to the forefront of people’s minds. “Rely on Atman, on Buddhahood!” It is this Self which manipulates mind-soul-consciousness across lives, so that enlightenment can be achieved, and Nirvana entered. This Self is the ever present talisman and witness of the light and goodness of Divine Presence. When we rely on this Self, we are aligning ourselves with the only truth and reality in the universe, whether we call it Dharmakaya, God or Brahman.

In the final analysis, it is really not important whether one believes in a soul or God, or not. What is important is that the student sincerely follows the teachings of the Eight Noble Truths of Buddhism, or the Eight Means of Raja Yoga from Vedanta, or the Ten Commandments of the Bible for that matter. All these means when sincerely applied, lead to enlightenment. The great illusion which some religious orders make is to believe that their method or path or set of beliefs, is the only way. But all true paths are the same and lead to enlightenment, when they are essentialised down to the required qualities of selflessness, harmlessness, kindness, love, understanding, compassion, and wisdom. Some people simply thrive on one path, some on another.

That is just the way it is!