The Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta with my commentary
~~~
Thus it was heard by me. At one time the Blessed One was living in the deer park of Isipatana near Benares. There, indeed, the Blessed One addressed the group of five monks.
Commentary: According to legend, Siddhattha Gotama's first followers after he became the Buddha were five monks with whom he had practiced asceticism while seeking enlightenment.
"Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.'Commentary: If you were your body ("form"), then you would have complete control over your body. You do not have complete control over your body. Therefore, you are not your body.
Here and throughout the first part of the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta, the Buddha relies on the following premise: if you are x, then you have complete control over x. It isn't entirely clear to me why he accepts this premise. Here is my best guess as to why: whenever you cannot control something, your failure to control it results from a separation of some kind between you and it (for example, you cannot control what another person does, because you and the other person are separate people); but if there is such a thing as "you," then there cannot be any separation between you and yourself; therefore, if there is such a thing as "you," then you have complete control over it.
"Feeling, O monks, is not-self; if feeling were self, then feeling would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding feeling: 'May my feeling be thus, may my feeling not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since feeling is not-self, therefore feeling leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding feeling: 'May my feeling be thus, may my feeling not be thus.'
Commentary: If you were your feeling, then you would have complete control over your feeling. You do not have complete control over your feeling. Therefore, you are not your feeling.
"Perception, O monks, is not-self; if perception were self, then perception would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding perception: 'May my perception be thus, may my perception not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since perception is not-self, therefore, perception leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding perception: 'May my perception be thus, may my perception not be thus.'
Commentary: If you were your perception, then you would have complete control over your perception. You do not have complete control over your perception. Therefore, you are not your perception.
"Mental formations, O monks, are not-self; if mental formations were self, then mental formations would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding mental formations: 'May my perception be thus, may my mental formations not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since mental formations are not-self, therefore, mental formations lead to affliction and it does not obtain regarding mental formations: 'May my mental formations be thus, may my mental formations not be thus.'Commentary: If you were your mental formations, then you would have complete control over your mental formations. You do not have complete control over your mental formations. Therefore, you are not your mental formations.
"Consciousness, O monks, is not-self; if consciousness were self, then consciousness would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding consciousness: 'May my consciousness be thus, may my consciousness not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since consciousness is not-self, therefore, consciousness leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding consciousness: 'May my consciousness be thus, may my consciousness not be thus.'
Commentary: If you were your consciousness, then you would have complete control over your consciousness. You do not have complete control over your consciousness. Therefore, you are not your consciousness.
We are now in a position to summarize the first argument in this passage, an argument that I call the Control Argument. If you are x, then x is completely under your control. We have seen that none of the five skandhas are completely under your control. Therefore, you are none of the five skandhas. It is unclear what else you could be. Therefore, it seems, you do not exist.
"What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent or impermanent?"
Commentary: Both the Buddha and his audience would have accepted the doctrine of reincarnation, which was common to almost all Indian religious traditions at the time. According to the doctrine of reincarnation, each person is reborn into a new life after they die; although the body will die, the person lasts forever. From the perspective of someone who lasts forever, anything less than forever is impermanent. Given the historical context, therefore, when the Buddha says "permanent," he probably means everlasting.
What if you don't believe in reincarnation—or in an afterlife of any kind? I think that this argument can still speak to you. If there is no afterlife, then, from your perspective, x is permanent if x lasts for your entire lifetime, and x is impermanent if x does not last for your entire lifetime.
Notice that, in either case, for x to be permanent is for x to last as long as you do. Therefore, we can rephrase the Buddha's question as follows: does your body last as long as you do?
"Impermanent, O Lord."Commentary: Your body does not last as long as you do. This statement is true whether you last forever or for only one lifetime. Your body clearly does not last forever, because it dies. It may appear to last for your lifetime, but that appearance is misleading. Your body is constantly exchanging matter with its environment. The matter that we call "your body" now is not the same matter that we will call "your body" a year from now. Therefore, the body that you have at any given moment does not last as long as you do.
"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
Commentary: If you are x, then x is permanent—that is, x lasts as long as you do. Combining this step with the previous ones, we get the following argument. Your body does not last as long as you do. If you are x, then x lasts as long as you do. Therefore, you are not your body.
"What do you think of this, O monks? Is feeling permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."Commentary: Your feeling does not last as long as you do. (By "feeling" (vedanā), the Buddha means only pleasure and pain, not emotion per se. The point is that pleasure and pain are transient.) If you are x, then x lasts as long as you do. Therefore, you are not your feeling.
"What do you think of this, O monks? Is perception permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, what is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
Commentary: Your perception does not last as long as you do. (For example, your visual perception changes whenever you turn your head to look at a new object.) If you are x, then x lasts as long as you do. Therefore, you are not your perception.
"What do you think of this, O monks? Are mental formations permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, those that are impermanent, are they unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, those that are impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard them as: 'They are mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."Commentary: There is good reason to think that in the doctrine of the five skandhas, "mental formations," or just "formations" (saṃskāra), was originally supposed to include only choices or intentions. For example, lists of the five skandhas often substitute "choice," cetanā, for "formations." In abhidharma (Buddhist scholasticism), "mental formations" came to include an increasing number of other mental functions.
Whether we interpret "mental formations" as choices or as a broader group of mental functions, your mental formations clearly do not last as long as you do. If you are x, then x lasts as long as you do. Therefore, you are not your mental formations.
"Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."Commentary: Your consciousness does not last as long as you do. (For example, your consciousness ceases to exist when you are in dreamless sleep.) If you are x, then x lasts as long as you do. Therefore, you are not your consciousness.
We are now in a position to summarize the second argument in this passage, an argument that I call the Permanence Argument. If you are x, then x lasts as long as you do. We have seen that none of the five skandhas last as long as you do. Therefore, you are none of the five skandhas. It is unclear what else you could be. Therefore, it seems, you do not exist.
The Permanence Argument helps clarify what the Buddha means when he says that you do not exist. He is saying that you are like a waterfall. We think of a waterfall as a single object that lasts over time, but there really is no such enduring object: the water that we call "the waterfall" is constantly flowing away and being replaced. Likewise, we think of a person as a single object that lasts over time, but there really is no such enduring object: the skandhas that we call "the person" are constantly flowing away and being replaced.
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever form, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that form must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever feeling, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that feeling must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever perception, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that perception must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever mental formations, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all those mental formations must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'These are not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever consciousness, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that consciousness must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'Commentary: You are none of the five skandhas.
"O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'"Commentary: If you truly realize that you are none of the five skandhas, then you lose your attachment to them. Losing your attachment to them, you are freed from the craving for them—for more bodily life, more feelings, more perceptions, etc.—that (according to Buddhist tradition) leads you to be reincarnated in this world.
This the Blessed One said. Pleased, the group of five monks were delighted with the exposition of the Blessed One; moreover, as this exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks were freed of defilements, without attachment.Commentary: According to the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta, hearing the Buddha's sermon freed the five monks from craving.
Comments
Post a Comment