Selected excerpts from “The Island: An Anthology of the Buddha’s Teachings on Nibbana” by Ajahn Amaro and Ajahn Pasanno.

One of the most subtle and invaluable aspects of the Buddha’s teaching is the way in which it illuminates the conundrum of selfhood, together with its treatment of the age-old questions of being and non-being, existence and non-existence. The main thrust of the Buddha’s insight into this area is hinted at by the title of this chapter; that is to say, much of the confusion and strife in the conceptual realm over these issues seems to have come from asking the wrong questions – questions based on axioms and unconscious presuppositions which do not accord with reality. If one adopts the world view embedded in the wording of such biased questions, then no response which accords with reality can come forth.

Central to the path of insight into this area is a recognition that the sense of self is a conditioned, natural quality. Neither eternally self-existent nor essentially non-existent, it arises and passes away dependent on causes and conditions. 5.2) “Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a barb. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; they are not shaken and are not agitated. For there is nothing present in them by which they might be born. Not being born, how could they age? Not ageing, how could they die? Not dying, how could they be shaken? Not being shaken, why should they be agitated?” ~M 140.31

There is some controversy as to the view tentatively expressed by Acariya Buddhaghosa in the ‘Visuddhimagga’ that the dependent origination teachings can refer to both the microcosm of the present moment and present life, and the macrocosm of the span of several lives [Note: this is a subject we can examine some other time… let’s return to the present discussion.]

“5.11)      Now the Ven. Sariputta went to visit the Blessed One… As he sat at one side the Blessed One said this to him:

“Sariputta, you must train yourself thus: In this body together with its consciousness, there shall be no notion of ‘I’ and ‘mine,’ no tendency to conceit. Likewise in all external objects there shall be no such notion or tendency. We will abide in the attainment of the heart’s release, the release through insight, so that we have no notion of ‘I’ and ‘mine,’ no tendency to conceit. That is how you must train yourselves.
“Insofar as a bhikkhu has no such notions, no such tendency… and abides in such attainment… he is called ‘A bhikkhu who has cut off craving, broken the bond: one who, by perfect comprehension of conceit, has made an end of dukkha.’ “Moreover, in this connection, Sariputta, I spoke thus in the chapter on The Goal in (the sutta called) The Questions of Udaya:
“The abandoning of lust and grief, both these, and sloth’s destruction too, restraint of mental restlessness “and pure tranquility of mind, the equipoise of wholesome thought these I call ‘Release by knowledge’ and ‘The breaking up of ignorance.'” ~ A 3.32

Or the conceits of identity can be quite clumsy and coarse: 5.12)
“People get stuck on ‘this was made by me,’ equally they attach to ‘made by someone else.’ Those who haven’t seen this, don’t know it as a barb. 91 “One who truly sees it, has taken out the hook, ‘I do this,’ doesn’t rise in them; nor ‘Another does…’ “Humanity is possessed by conceit – fettered, bound by it and spiteful speech spews from their views: “they don’t escape samsara.” ~Ud6.6 5.13)
       “This is how they attend unwisely: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I become in the future?’ Or else they are inwardly perplexed about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go?’ “When they attend unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in them. The view ‘self exists for me’ arises in them as true and established; […] or else they have some such view as this: ‘It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.’ These speculative views, bhikkhus, are called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. Fettered by the fetter of views, the untaught ordinary person is not freed from birth, ageing, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair; they are not freed from suffering, I say.” ~ M 2.7-8 92

Sometimes the Buddha responded to suchlike dilemmas and confusions with careful explanations – e.g., the exquisitely framed example at §11.2 On other occasions his response was silence, but perhaps just as explicit: 5.14)

       The wanderer Vacchagotta approached the Blessed One… and said to him: “How is it, Master Gotama, is there a self?” When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. “Then, Master Gotama, is there no self?” A second time the Blessed One was silent.
Then the wanderer Vacchagotta rose from his seat and departed. Not long after the wanderer Vacchagotta had left, the Venerable Ananda said to the Blessed One: “Why is it, venerable sir, that when the Blessed One was questioned by the wanderer Vacchagotta, he did not answer?”
“If, Ananda, when I was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta, ‘Is there a self?’ I had answered, ‘There is a self,’ this would have been siding with those samanas and brahmins who are eternalists. And if, when I was asked by him, ‘Is there no self?’ I had answered, ‘There is no self,’ this would have been siding with those samanas and brahmins who are annihilationists. “If, Ananda, when I was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta, ‘Is there a self?’ I had answered, ‘There is a self,’ would this have been consistent on my part with the arising of the knowledge that ‘all phenomena are not-self?'” “No, venerable sir.”
“if, when I was asked by him, ‘Is there no self?’ I had answered, ‘There is no self,’ the wanderer Vacchagotta, already confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking, ‘It seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now.'” ~S 44.10

In the very first discourse of the Middle Length collection, the Mulapariyaya Sutta, ‘The Root of All Things,’ the Buddha makes “a very thorough analysis of this error of conceit. He begins: 93 5.15)      “Here, bhikkhus, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, perceives earth as earth. Having perceived earth as earth, such a one conceives [themself as] earth, they conceive [themselves] in earth, they conceive [themselves apart] from earth, they conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ they delight in earth. Why is that? Because they have not fully understood it, I say…
He then continues the theme, applying it to the rest of the Four Elements, through ‘beings,’ ‘gods,’ ‘Pajapati,’ the Brahma gods of the Abhassara, Subhakinna. and Vehapphala realms (representing the second, third and fourth jhanas), the ‘Overlord’ (Abhibhu), the realms of the four formless jhanas, the ‘seen,’ the ‘heard,’ the ‘sensed,’ the ‘cognized,’ finally reaching ‘unity,’ ‘diversity’ and then, to complete the picture: “They perceive All as All. Having perceived All as All, they conceive [themselves as] All, they conceive [themselves] in All, they conceive [themselves apart] from All, they conceive All to be ‘mine,’ they delight in All. Why is that? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
“They perceive Nibbana as Nibbana. Having perceived Nibbana as Nibbana, they conceive [themselves as] Nibbana, they conceive [themselves] in Nibbana, they conceive [themselves apart] from Nibbana, they conceive Nibbana to be ‘mine,’ they delight in Nibbana. Why is that? Because they have not fully understood it, I say…” The Buddha then goes on to repeat the entire pattern seven times … He concludes with:
“Bhikkhus, the Tathagata, accomplished and fully enlightened, directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as “earth, he does not conceive [himself as] earth, he does not conceive [himself] in earth, he does not conceive [himself apart] from earth, he does not conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has understood that delight is the root of suffering, and that with being [as condition] there is birth and that for whatever has come to be there is ageing and death. Therefore, bhikkhus, through the complete 9i destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up and relinquishing of cravings, the Tathagata has awakened to supreme, full enlightenment, I say.”
“He directly knows water as water… the All as All… Nibbana as Nibbana, he does not conceive [himself as] Nibbana, he does not conceive [himself] in Nibbana, he does not conceive [himself] apart [or coming] from Nibbana, he does not conceive Nibbana to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he has understood that delight is the root of suffering, and that with being [as condition] there is birth and that for whatever has come to be there is ageing and death. Therefore, bhikkhus, through the complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up and relinquishing of cravings, the Tathagata has awakened to supreme, full enlightenment, I say.” ~M 1.3-194 (abridged)

To be continued