Wrong Understanding: The Overlooked Obstacle

by Colin Denny Donoghue

[last revision on July 17th, 2016]

There is a serious question for modern Buddhism today that is not often being asked: Are some of the modern teachings contradictory to what the Buddha taught, and act as a major obstacle to Enlightenment? In this essay I will attempt to show the distortions that have taken place, and why those who value Buddhist teachings should be weary of certain ideas that were not the original teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha.

"No-Self"

This question of inauthentic teachings definitely applies to the Buddhist subject of "no-Self/Spirit," which many people believe was the teaching of the Buddha.

The Buddha actually taught that unenlightened life (not all life) is characterized mainly by three things: non-Self (Anatta), Impermanence (Anicca), and Dissatisfaction (Dukkha). That is, your life will be filled with impermanent, dissatisfying and inauthentic relationships to others, yourself and Nature, while you remain under the influence of delusion, anger and craving (the "Three Poisons" of Samsara). Anicca and Dukkha are pretty much self-explanatory, the confusion has centered on Anatta. Let's start with the following clarifying quotations on that topic:

“Books on Buddhism often state that the Buddha's most basic metaphysical tenet is that there is no soul or self. However, a survey of the discourses in the Pali Canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — suggests that the Buddha taught the anatta or not-self doctrine, not as a metaphysical assertion, but as a strategy for gaining release from suffering: If one uses the concept of not-self to dis-identify oneself from all phenomena, one goes beyond the reach of all suffering & stress. As for what lies beyond suffering & stress, the Canon states that although it may be experienced, it lies beyond the range of description, and thus such descriptions as "self" or "not-self" would not apply.”

- Thanissaro Bhikkhu (from his essay “The Not-self Strategy” found on accesstoinsight.org)

“One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This

teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali Canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of Wrong View that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible.”

- Thanissaro Bhikkhu (from his essay “No-self or Not-self?” found on accesstoinsight.org)

Holding onto a Wrong View makes a successful Buddhist practice impossible; now that's certainly an obstacle to enlightenment is it not? So letting go of metaphysical assumptions, like on what the complete nature of Self is, is absolutely necessary if we are to ever attain enlightenment. The Buddha's teaching of Anatta is a teaching of non-Self, not no-Self; there is a big difference between the two. The former is saying what the Self is not, the latter means that there is no Self at all; this simple fact is lost in much of Buddhist study. No-Self doesn't leave any room for metaphysical complexity, it is a statement of self-annihilation, of non-existence, which is absurd; obviously we exist, if we didn't we wouldn't be able to discuss philosophy in the first place. This ties in with another related misconception in Buddhism: the term Nibanna (a.k.a. Nirvana) literally means "a blowing out," referring to the end of the "flame" of delusions and defilements, but is often mistranslated as "extinction" and the "end of rebirth," as in the death of Self, i.e. no-Self. The Buddha never said the purpose of following his teachings is complete annihilation, yet, amazingly, many Buddhist practitioners cling to this toxic idea.

Those that consider the teaching of Anatta to be a teaching of no-Self have always been refuted by other Buddhists though, like by Thanissaro Bhikkhu today and previously by the early Pudgalavada Schools of Buddhism; they have pointed out the irrationality of the idea, the lack of experiential evidence for the idea (differing from the verifiable nature of other authentic Buddhist teachings), and the fact that there is actually no evidence that this modern interpretation of no-Self was ever actually taught by the Buddha. Yet still today many Buddhists translate the Pali language term Anatta to be no-Self instead of non-Self, and teach the doctrine of no-Self as if it was indeed what the Buddha taught, even though it was not, and teach it as if it can be verified while unenlightened, which it can not be. This is not just an issue of semantics, the implications are deep and far-reaching; grasping onto delusions is antithetical to enlightenment. The Buddha's teaching of Anatta shows us what is not our authentic Self, and therefore this teaching is absolutely crucial in order for us to liberate our minds from Mara, as he did. When this teaching is wrongly reduced to the idea of "no-Self" it stands as a major obstacle to becoming fully awake to all of Reality, which includes realization of our blissful Buddha-Nature, i.e. achieving Nibbana, since the practitioner may cling to the wrong view that she or he ultimately doesn't exist at all.

The Buddha said that what Anatta is, i.e. what is non-Self, are the "Five Aggregates/Skandhas of clinging," that is, five things we ignorantly cling to and identify with, that thereby cause us suffering. He never said everything is Anatta/non-Self, just that those five things aren't, but usually are mistaken for the Self. These five things, as we can see for ourselves with contemplation, cannot be who we are fundamentally, and we can also see that when we do identify with them, it invariably causes us suffering, just as the Buddha said it would. Below are the Five Aggregates which we misidentify with and cling to, in clarified definitions; I find that many translations are confused, irrational and contradictory; further explanation follows below them.

1. Our Bodily Form (i.e. impressions from your 5 senses which are fixated on, plus fixated thoughts about your body, e.g. you look at your body and think "that's me," which is a form of superficiality which can cause suffering).

2. Emotions (i.e. you cling to emotional states, whether pleasant or unpleasant, and that causes suffering).

3. Perceptions --> Beliefs --> Assumption (i.e. you cling to and act on assumptions about yourself or others, and that causes suffering).

4. Lower/Unguided Intentions (i.e. you think something is best, but it turns out to not be what's actually best; clinging to your lower intentions and ignoring Divine Guidance can cause suffering).

5. Lower Reactive Consciousness / Mara-mind (i.e. you follow the tense reactions of toxic (false, irrational & unkind) thoughts that arise in your mind, rather than the natural and Intuitive impulses that arise; by not using critical and ethical consideration of the difference so that you may choose the latter, that causes suffering).

The common descriptions of the Five Aggregates are nonsensical. The First Aggregate is usually just called “Form,” but that is too ambiguous to be helpful, form of what? It is the form of the body that is obviously something that's commonly clung to, thereby causing suffering. The Second Aggregate is usually just called “Feeling,” which doesn't distinguish between emotional and bodily feeling, and then, worse, when writers do clarify which is being referred to, say it refers to bodily feeling, which is not as readily clung to as emotion is, and already covered by the First Aggregate anyway. The problems continue with the Third Aggregate, usually just called Perception, this time not distinguishing between perception as in sensory or as in belief, and again, worse, when explanation is offered, they choose perception as in sensory, which again is not nearly as problematic on our lives, and again is covered by the First Aggregate anyway. The Fourth Aggregate is usually just called “Fabrications,” which again is very ambiguous, and therefore unhelpful. After researching and contemplating more deeply I came to see that what actually makes sense for this Aggregate is Unguided Intentions, i.e. fabrications of elements of reality to fit a fantasy of what is good or bad, or in other words, projections, but more specifically and importantly, intentions that are not open to omniscient Guidance. The last Aggregate is usually just called Consciousness, and this is also problematic, what does it mean to cling to consciousness? That's too vague, but when we consider the very real and specific phenomenon of Mara consciousness, and how clinging to that certainly brings us suffering, then what makes sense for this Aggregate is also discovered; this also serves as a “catch-all” final Aggregate, since all the previous Aggregates of Clinging are actually just various manifestations of Mara-mind that are being pointed out separately because of their regularity of occurrence; other irrational/untrue/unkind thought may also be clung to of course though, so the Fifth Aggregate covers all those possibilities.

Again the teaching on the Five Aggregates is a teaching on non-Self, i.e. what is not the Self, things we think of as us (Mara-mind manifestations) and thereby cause us suffering, not a teaching of absolute no-Self. And what is left when we are not putting our attention on these five things? Our own Awareness, the uncorrupted True Self, from which we can gain Insight from and follow the Noble Eightfold Path most readily from. By pointing out what we should not get caught up in, the Buddha was leading us to the natural and free mindset that is needed for our Liberation.

Related to this process of disentanglement from the Five Aggregates is the Hindu meditation practice of self-inquiry wherein one asks themselves the question "Who am I?", in order to discover that one is not just the form of the body, nor emotions, nor reactive/toxic consciousness. This meditation teaching, like the Buddha's teaching on Annata/non-Self, is a helpful tool for discovering what we are not, what should not be clung to when in meditation (or at any time), not a means of disappearing into Emptiness.

However, if someone were to attempt to go further than the Five Aggregates concerning what is non-Self, following the belief of absolute no-Self, there might appear to be a wealth of benefits that would come from that. The benefits may seem so plentiful in fact, the results apparently so in-line with what the behavior of a true Buddhist practitioner should be, that it can seem that this must be the "ultimate" wisdom-realization upon enlightenment, because of the "enlightened" characteristics that it brings to the individual that takes the perspective. I shared this view myself for a short time, particularly after reading the teachings of Tibetan Buddhist authors who emphasized no-Self/Emptiness. The logic seems solid, at first. If ignorance is the ultimate root of all of our suffering, doesn't the "wisdom" of no-Self/no-Soul give an understanding that would remove all anxiety, all anger, all attachment? Would not the Three Poisons of delusion, anger, and craving be fully eliminated if this "wisdom" was fully known and lived? The answer would appear to be yes, and this is what many Buddhist teachers say exactly. When we become afraid, angry or attached, the argument goes, it is it first due to our perception of our own sense of self and a distinct other; if there was no perception of a Self in the first place, then that would prevent all of those negative emotions and mental reactions from ever taking hold. The problem with this view is that it's assuming that there is no such thing as a pure Self, no such thing as a pure Buddha-Nature, and it's assuming that belief in is a Self the root delusion, even though the Buddha never said that was a delusion at all. Aligning with that perspective is understandable however. Since we have spent most of our lives identifying with the Five Aggregates, if through disciplined meditation practice one frees their mind from those clingings (as countless monks and others have surely done), the experience can seem to be that one has ceased to exist altogether; so even if they weren't clinging to the belief in no-Self previously, they may begin to after this experience. This is actually just a metaphysical assumption, based on the total newness of the experience, and isn't the testimony of someone fully enlightened. Just as someone who has been in the same career for decades may say they "don't know who they are anymore" or that they feel like they "don't exist anymore" when that career ends, a meditation practitioner can fall into a similar (but deeper) false view when they enter unfamiliar mental territory as well, especially with something as exceedingly unfamiliar as a mind temporarily freed from clinging to the Five Aggregates. And so, rather than progress further toward enlightenment, they cling to their new lower perception (going back to one of the Five Aggregates that stand in the way of enlightenment), via the belief in no-Self.

"When we talk about nonself – what is not self – I think it’s a big problem in the way Buddhists talk about “no self” to be honest. I think it’s a load of nonsense – “Buddhism says I have no self” – no it doesn’t! That’s ridiculous!

I mean the Buddha said: If you look at what’s impermanent and changing and things we cling to – if you look at the 5 skandhas [a.k.a. aggregates] and clinging to those – you find that none of them are the self, really. They’re all interpretation – they’re not really in essence what you are in yourself – they’re interpretation. ...

And what is not changing, not conditioned, not suffering? What’s described like that and is described as bliss? What does the Buddha describe like that? Nirvana.

So... the skandhas are not the self because they are not Nirvana.

In other words, when I find Nirvana, I find my true self. My true self IS Nirvana!

In English, it’s very natural to say, “What am I, in myself?” And if you look it up in the dictionary, it means the true nature of something – the

self of something is the true nature of something.

So what is impermanent and changing and suffering is not what we are in ourselves – because if that’s what we are in ourselves, we wouldn’t be complaining would we?

So when we sense that there is something – something true and some reality about our experience, I think.. you do point to your own heart, to something that’s more you than anything else, any interpretation you can put on it – it’s something quite profound.

And then you notice that most of the time, we’re not thinking of that as ourselves – in fact, we tend to not even go there."

- Lama Shenpen Hookham, Ph.D., https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/2016/05/27/why-are-things-not-self-and-what-is-your-true-self-lama-shenpen-hookham/

Here's a version I found of the altered/wrong perspective on Anatta expressed, a version just like many found in most books on Buddhism:

“The third defining mark of existence is that all phenomena are without self or a soul (anatta). ... [T]he Buddha proclaimed that “all things are not-self” (sabbe dhamma anatta). There is no abiding soul, self or ego at the center of the human personality. Human beings are a bundle of five impermanent “heaps” (skandhas). These are: bodily form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and bodily consciousness. The five skandhas [a.k.a. The Five Aggregates] cling to the notion of an ego that unites them, but in reality there is nothing but a series of processes.”

Can you already see the flaws in this thinking, the twisting of the Buddha's words? Again, the Buddha never said a defining characteristic of reality is no-Self, he said it was non-Self. Secondly, "all things are not-Self" is another misquote, he said all conditioned things are non-Self, "conditioned" being a translation of the term sankhara, which means mentally fabricated. The Five Aggregates are all examples of mental fabrications, so the Buddha is just reiterating that teaching in a simplified manner. Thirdly, to assert that human beings simply are the Five Aggregates, completely contradicts what the Buddha taught repeatedly, namely that they are not who we are! Thirdly, to speak of the Five Aggregates as if they had the ability to cling to something, as if they were conscious, makes no sense; how can “impermanent heaps” cling to anything? This teaching is clearly nothing like what we hear from the Buddha; he said we cling to the Aggregates, not that they cling to anything. I am not just nit-picking here in academic fashion, I am pointing out a major flaw that pervades Buddhist thought throughout the world, that degrades the quality and usefulness of the entire philosophy tremendously. Even honorable and renowned Buddhist teachers like Thich Nhat Hanh repeat the same false teaching, as he does here in his book Cultivating the Mind of Love: "If you believe in a permanent self, a self that exists forever, a separate, independent self, your belief cannot be described as Buddhist." (p. 52) The same could be said about a belief in absolute no-Self, since the Buddha never actually taught that.

So, as tempting as it may be to jump on the no-Self bandwagon, I’ve let this train pass by. Why? Because going to an extreme (and disempowering) metaphysical belief (e.g. "no-Self/Soul") can be a major obstacle to enlightenment, confusing fantasy with Reality:

"Whenever the Buddha says that the aggregates in particular or phenomena (dharmas) in general are non-self, the Pudgalavādins understand this only as a denial that the self can be simply identified with them. The view of the Theravādins and Sarvāstivādins, that what we call the self is simply the ever-changing aggregates spoken and thought of for convenience as a persisting entity, seems to the

Pudgalavādins to be equivalent to identifying the self with its aggregates, a view which the Buddha explicitly rejected."

- Leonard Priestley, http://www.iep.utm.edu/pudgalav/

Reviewing the Three Characteristics of unenlightened Life (Non-Self, Impermanence, Dissatisfaction), we can see the truth of its Impermanence and Dissatisfaction clearly in our samsaric daily lives, and the truth of non-Self as well, but only in the way the Buddha taught us to observe: the Self is not the Five Aggregates (i.e. Forms, Emotions, Perceptions/Beliefs, Intentions, and Reactive Consciousness); what else can be said about it goes beyond our unenlightened understanding. Here I would like to quote from some correspondence from my old friend, ZhiXing Bhikkhu:

“As to whether non-self or no-self (and not not-self) is taught, consider this: When dhamma talks and teachings are given on no-self, it is in the context of the Five Aggregates, i.e. that there is no self that can be found in the Five Aggregates. In that context, is it not true? Is it not true that the Buddha did teach that the Five Aggregates should not be and is not fit to be considered "mine, me or my self"? What I'm saying here is that the teaching of Anatta or in some cases phrased as no-self, is not an assumption made by later monks or scholars. It’s really the context that makes the difference. Further, in the context of our possible understanding, with our conventional language and concepts, it is correct to say that there is no-self to be found anywhere in our existence (in samsara). Even to put it in this way, is tricky. Why? Because isn't it then tempting to think that perhaps a self can be found beyond samsara, i.e. Nibbana? ... That is the problem that we need to escape from, the tendency to latch on the concept of a self to anything we think of. For now, it's probably better to start doing the basics: i.e., meditate and observe this Five Khandas [a.k.a. Aggregates] and develop mindfulness.”

I am in full agreement with the statements that our Buddha-Nature/Self is clearly not just the Five Aggregates, and that we should get to the real work of Buddhist practice and discard all distractions and distortions that hamper our progress on the path to gaining full insight/enlightenment, alleviating our own suffering and the suffering of all other beings; but the belief in absolute no-Self clearly is an assumption made by later monks and scholars. (Speaking of monks, the Buddha himself ordained women into the monastic order, but now most “traditionalist” monks don't allow it! That's not only irrational, but also sexist.)

Thanissaro Bhikkhu also states in his “Not-self Strategy” essay: “Although the concept "not-self" is a useful way of disentangling oneself from the attachments & clingings which lead to suffering, the view that there is no self is simply one of many metaphysical or ontological views which bind one to suffering.” I can’t say it better than that.

What did the Buddha have to say about the Self when he was asked directly about it? Did he say there was no Self whatsoever? No. In the Ananda Sutra, he said nothing at all, knowing that metaphysical concepts only confuse and distract the unenlightened mind:

“Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a Self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no Self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.”

Our unenlightened understanding of Self would only cause us trouble on our path, so it is best to leave metaphysical questions like this unanswered and instead focus on what we know to be true, namely the virtue of the Noble Eightfold Path. Yet today Buddhist practitioners speak of no-Self/no-Soul in an absolute sense, well beyond what the Buddha ever taught and treat it as fact, as if it was proclaimed by

the Buddha.

The idea of absolute no-Self/Spirit is also very problematic because it can lead to a form of cold nihilism that is just covered with so-called compassion, a negation of one's own being, against one's own inner Spirit of life (that can be deeply known through meditation); in other words it can be a form of non-compassion, by negating our own existence completely without any rational or experiential reason to do so, it is against healthy and good self-love. Self-love is not necessarily a selfish thing, and when we say that we wish all beings happiness, certainly that includes ourselves! To follow the Buddha's path to the cessation of suffering is certainly expressing some self-love; so to simultaneously reject yourself by saying you don't really exist is strange is it not? Additionally, this cold perspective can be a slippery slope, leading to rationalizations for suicide or harming others; if we believe that human existence is just somehow the Five Aggregates all put together and there is no Self/Spirit beyond that, then that is saying that individuals are essentially illusory, and so why (and how could we) be compassionate toward illusions?

"They [the Pudgalavādin Buddhists] argued also that the operation of karma is incomprehensible if the person is nothing more than an assemblage of phenomena. Destroying a particular arrangement of particles of clay in the form of an ox is not killing anything and has in itself no karmic consequences; but destroying a particular arrangement of aggregates in the form of a living ox is killing something and has unfortunate consequences for the person who killed it. If the ox is really nothing but an arrangement of aggregates, destroying that arrangement, rearranging the aggregates, should have no more moral and karmic significance than smashing the clay image of an ox. ...belief in the reality of other selves would seem to make it more difficult to ignore the suffering of others than if all persons were thought to be essentially an illusion."

- Leonard Priestley, http://www.iep.utm.edu/pudgalav/

Animals

The above quote is also good in that it brought up animals; many Buddhists think killing and/or paying for animals to be killed isn't a violation of the precept against killing, a perspective that doesn't hold up to scrutiny; how can Right Action possibly include the enslavement, torture and mass-murder of sentient beings for no good reason?iii Many Buddhists often give this excuse for why they still eat meat: "During the Buddha's time the wondering monks had to accept whatever was given during their alms rounds in order to survive." This argument is obviously flawed; first of all, are you currently a wondering homeless monk that will starve if you don't accept some animal flesh given to you? This is never the case for anyone I've heard give this excuse. But even if it was the case, it still doesn't hold much weight; why can't you let it be known that you prefer plant-foods? Why ignore the obvious fact that if you request something in particular (which is no harder to come by than other versions of the donation) that many, if not all, of the donators will comply without complaint? This lack of simple request is even more indefensible by monks at monasteries who could very easily make a sign (physical and on their website) indicating what kind of donations are accepted. They actually already do this, refusing intoxicating substances, etc. So what good reason is there to not include animal products on that list of things not accepted? There is none; in reality it comes down to thoughts of "not wanting to alienate the public," or some other immoral/untrue/irrational idea rationalizing carnism (e.g. "we need to eat meat to be healthy"), i.e. some Mara-thought.

"No Good or Bad"

Often this doctrine of no-Self/no-Soul is coupled with a theory of the non-duality of good and evil, which is another problematic philosophical assumption. Obviously the Buddha constantly distinguished between right and wrong in his teachings, his teaching on how to achieve

enlightenment, The Noble Eightfold Path, consists of eight "Right aspects after all! (Right Understanding, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration). And each has corresponding wrong versions which he specifically explained. The Buddha was constantly pointing out what's good and evil concerning the path to enlightenment, so an amoral perspective is completely different from and opposed to what the Buddha actually taught.

For a more specific example, let’s take the precept against ingesting intoxicants as an avenue of relevant discussion to this topic of what is good & evil, right & wrong, helpful & destructive. Intoxicants cause heedlessness, which undermines one’s concentration and mindfulness and therefore one’s ability to practice the Buddhist path and achieve progress toward enlightenment. However for the sake of greater understanding, lets consider a less moralistic perspective on intoxicants: someone once told me that she liked alcohol because of the feeling of love that it often brought out among people. She wasn’t arguing that it always makes people loving and there would be world peace if everyone just got drunk, just that it does sometimes have this affect on people, and I know exactly what she was talking about, there is truth to the thought. So since there is some truth to it, should I conclude that alcohol is neither good nor bad, it has a non-dual nature and cannot be judged so plainly as a bad thing that one should take a precept against using? Most of my adult life I have broken this precept, and guess what? I can’t think of a single time the results were lastingly positive. Not one. Shakyamuni Buddha did not say there were exceptions to the rule of no intoxicants, and I don’t think this was simply precautionary in nature. It was coming from an enlightened perspective, one that saw through the moral relativism that would have us believe that there's nothing that's actually bad in the world; some things (namely violence and slavery) are bad! And on a more subtle level, the ultimate nature of intoxicants, in the context of seeking enlightenment, is also bad; their effect of lowering awareness being ultimately divergent to the path of spiritual realization.i If we think we can do whatever we feel like, to others and ourselves, and it's all equally conducive to spiritual liberation, we're kidding ourselves. That would be wrong understanding, a wrong view. Morality is integral to the teaching of the Buddha (as well as Jesus); if you don't like that, fine, then you can take up some other practice (there's plenty of New Age nonsense to choose from!), but don't call amoral teachings Buddhist, because that would be a lie.

Mara

The night the Buddha was sitting under the Bodhi tree where he finally achieved full enlightenment, before he reached that ultimate goal and achievement, he met fierce resistance from a being he called

Mara. Mara tried to dissuade him from continuing in his endeavor, he tried to tempt him to fall for various lies and toxic temptations; but the Buddha just shot each and every one of them down, proclaiming “I see you Mara,” (i.e. “I see through all your toxic bullshit.”). This is of course similar to the trial faced by Jesus with the Devil, and like the Buddha, he also didn't buy any of what that evil being was selling. The Devil/Mara operates as an accuser, a slanderer, a liar, with the sole intent of sabotaging your spiritual progress, and misleading you into the exact opposite direction, toward further bondage to his agenda and the suffering that inevitably comes with it.

If you think an actual being of this kind is too fantastic to believe in, then you can just focus on the main weapons of this evil force: the irrational, unproven/untrue and unkind thoughts that arise in your mind on their own (i.e. the toxic trio of Mara-ideas). This toxic trio manifests as various spiritually and personally sabotaging toxic ideas, like for instance, an assumption, like the assumption of absolute no-Self put within an otherwise rational, true-to-experience (and true to the Buddha's teachings) compassionate philosophical framework. An idea like no-Self is actually exactly the kind of thing the Buddha was seeking to overcome on his quest for enlightenment; and that's the wicked irony with Mara-ideas, not only are they false, but they maximize their evil potential by being the exact opposite of the truth, resulting in the exact opposite effect from that which you are led to believe they will accomplish, e.g. no-Self as the “direct path to Nirvana.” We must see through the irrational, untrue, and unkind elements that we are told (or that arise in our minds) that are in opposition to our understanding of truth and our embodiment of compassion, and therefore in opposition to our enlightenment. The main opponent to the Buddha's enlightenment (and our own) is oftentimes mistaken as just a fairy tale, missing the fact of the matter that this negative force is real and active, in the form of the toxic trio that makes up various delusions. These delusions oftentimes coincide with the other two central poisons of Mara's Wheel, anger and craving, that also disturb our minds, thereby making us more susceptible to Mara's influence that would have us stray from the true path to liberation.

"Life is Suffering"

Another major misconception in Buddhism is that "The Buddha taught that all life is suffering." That is incorrect; it contradicts the Third Noble Truth that cessation of suffering in this lifetime is possible, and that this is exactly what the Buddha did by following the Fourth Noble Truth, i.e. The Noble Eightfold Path, the path leading to the cessation of suffering. The Buddha's main teaching was the Four Noble Truths, yet many Buddhist teachers distort the First (saying all life is suffering) and Second Truths (saying the origin of suffering is desire, e.g. seeking satisfaction/happiness), completely ignore the Third (by denying that lasting happiness is possible), and then give little to no mention of the Fourth! That's not real Buddhism! (More on the Four Noble Truths to follow).

Was the Buddha not happy after his enlightenment? Doesn't following the Buddha's Noble Eightfold Path actually decrease suffering and increase happiness within this very lifetime? And if so, then why can't we progressively decrease suffering while increasing happiness until our lives become predominantly happy? Don't we in fact notice the benefits of practice right away?

“Those who know right as right, and know the wrong to be wrong, ascend to happy states of being, for they hold right views.”

- The Buddha, The Dhammapada, Chapter 22

To completely discard the possibility of making a more heavenly experience on Earth is defeatist, irrational and contradictory to what the Buddha taught. We should instead seek to be joyful spiritual revolutionaries rather than pessimistic conformers to the dominating status-quo.

This internal contradiction in Buddhist philosophy shows itself also when we hear that "our human lives our precious", but at the same time the entire goal of the practice is to not be reborn, in order to "escape the suffering of birth, sickness, old age and death." The supposed teaching of the Buddha that

birth, old age and death are all necessarily very unpleasant, i.e. that human existence can never be happy, has also been rejected by scholars as inauthentic.

The false anti-life ideas found in corrupted Buddhism (as distinct from what the Buddha actually taught) make large assumptions, like that Samsara is not at all also referring to patterns of dissatisfaction (and realms of existence) within this very life we are living now, that are the result of unenlightened living. It also assumes that one can not be born, grow to be elderly and die without suffering always being the dominant experience of each stage of life; yet there have been countless examples of births, deaths and old-age wherein suffering was not the dominant experience, disproving it as universal truth. The false anti-life idea is taken mainly from the so-called "Song of Victory" that is said to be the first words spoken by the Buddha right after he was enlightened (even though he was alone at the time so there was no one to recall these words, and these supposed words of the Buddha were never repeated by him, and contradict his main teachings!). The words in this chapter are starkly nothing like what the Buddha says anywhere else, being very averse to the human body, calling it "a heap of corruption" and "a nest of diseases," while a few verses later saying that if one does not seek wealth in their youth they will suffer because of it (so now the Buddha is a capitalistic materialist?!). The root of suffering is... lack of wealth? Oh yeah, that sounds like the Buddha alright! Give me a break. These highly questionable verses are included in the "Old Age" chapter of the Dhammapada which sound nothing like the Buddha we hear in all the other chapters (and other sutras), and is also footnoted to be of questionable historical origin. I think it is safe to say that these verses should hold little to no weight, yet, of course, there are many who not only accept them, but make them central to the entire Buddhist philosophy, just as is done with the concept of no-Self, Mara-thoughts sneaking in once again to mislead humanity.

Impermanence

Along with these clearly false ideas, is the "Buddhist" teaching that everything in life is impermanent. First of all, Dhamma is permanent; the Four Noble Truths are permanently true. Also many who teach "everything is impermanent" will contradict themselves when describing the Buddha's enlightenment as an experience of permanent peace & happiness; to be completely oblivious to this clear contradiction is a good example of delusion. Are there any mentions of the Buddha falling into depression on occasion, or perhaps losing his temper once or twice with obstinate debaters? No, he was a "non-returner" to the samsaric patterns we continue to be partaking in, he had attained sainthood with the complete Right Understanding and resolve needed to maintain that enlightened state permanently. Now one could say "Well yes but he still died," but that is just a statement of ignorant presumption that death is necessarily a true end to existence and also a source of suffering, as is the Buddhist teaching that "having what you want is suffering," and "not having what you want is suffering," which is talking about disturbed mindsets of attachment and craving, mindsets that one does not necessarily have to have! Can't I enjoy something without attachment to it, and therefore without the dukkha that comes with that attachment? Of course I can! (Not saying I often do, but it's of course possible). Can I have healthy desires without the dukkha of craving after them? Of course I can! (Again, not my regular habit, but still certainly possible). Is this really that complicated? I don't think so, but amazingly scholars for generations have overlooked these obvious blunders in Buddhist thought, or perhaps some noticed them, but were hesitant to openly reject them, as that might be politically incorrect among the monastics.

The teachings that make no sense and contradict the consistent teachings that do make sense should be recognized, at the very least, as potentially inauthentic. In slap-my-head amazement I read about how there is consensus among Buddhist scholars that some of what makes up the Buddhist cannon is certainly the thoughts of later writers, yet they then never consider which statements those are, even though it is not very hard to spot. Again, if it's nothing like the rest of the teachings, contradicts them,

and is said in a parlance noticeably different, do we need a Ph.D in Philology to flag those passages as suspect?

Those that are heavily influenced by Mara always concentrate on that which is obviously false, not useful and should be discarded, and ignore that which is obviously true, useful and should be focused on. (Go to a variety of Dhamma talks and you will undoubtedly observe this during questions & answers, assuming you're not one of those who go off on metaphysical musings and/or distracting unimportant/irrelevant tangents yourself, wasting time that should be used to focus on the core teachings of Liberation: The Noble Eightfold Path & The Seven Factors of Enlightenment.

~~~

On the path to liberation we can't skip the first step of Right View/Understanding, by claiming understanding of Reality that we have no authority to maintain. Why can’t we be satisfied with the Buddha’s first sermon of the Four Noble Truths? Is that not enough for a lifetime of study and practice? We go astray if we become engrossed in limited views on unenlightened Life/ Samsara (i.e. patterns/cycles of dissatisfaction), making over-arching negative assumptions about it, just like the doctrine of absolute no-Self does, twisting/changing the teachings of the Buddha to fit those assumptions.

The Buddhist path, without all the aforementioned distortions, could be simplified to:

1. The Noble Eightfold Path (Right Understanding, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration) which supports…

2. No longer identifying with or clinging to the Five Aggregates, deep calm abiding overcoming the Five Hindrances that arise in meditation (Sensual Fantasy, Violent Fantasy, Laziness & Drowsiness, Restlessness, and Doubt), perfecting Concentration (progressing through the Four Jhanas), and then advancing in Insight concerning metaphysical Truth and harmony with the Earth and other sentient life, which leads to…

3. Happiness, and Understanding of the full Truth of the human condition (which includes complete recognition and understanding of The Four Noble Truths, Impermanence, Karma, Reincarnation and Self), completely defeating "Mara" (i.e. the main internal and external obstacles to liberation), resulting in Enlightenment/Nirvana (i.e. the elimination of all negative factors which had been corrupting one's life), now secure from further bondage and disturbance.

The Four Noble Truths are the core of the Buddha's teachings, and unfortunately it has been distorted to the point of being an actual obstacle to enlightenment, rather than the means to it. The Four Noble Truths are often translated in a way that makes the Buddha's teaching anti-life and irrational, by

a) saying that all life is suffering (obviously it's not, as the Buddha demonstrated through his achievement of ultimate happiness, and as the Third Noble Truth also makes very clear), and

b) that the origin of suffering is desire (again obviously not, desiring happiness is just sanity). Would you tell someone dying of thirst in a desert that it's their thirst that is the root problem?? Of course not, the root problem is that they don't have water, and don't know where to get it. Likewise we have been searching for lasting fulfillment all over the place but haven't found it, because we have not been consistently following the right path, namely the Noble Eightfold Path. The Buddha pointed the way to quench our thirst, not to end our thirst for satisfaction, peace and happiness altogether; again that is just another distorted and irrational anti-life teaching, like that of no-Self.

The Four Noble Truths are really as follows:

1. Unenlightened life is dissatisfying.

2. The origin of this dissatisfaction is never finding lasting fulfillment (i.e. continual "thirst.")3. This dissatisfaction can come to an end in your lifetime, you can find lasting fulfillment.4. Following the Noble Eightfold Path is the way to achieve that lasting fulfillment.

~~~

My conclusion is really nothing profound; I am simply stating that Siddhartha Gautama (Shakyamuni Buddha) was indeed one of the greatest minds in the history of mankind. And not surprisingly, later unenlightened thinkers distorted his teachings. Based on the original teachings there is no reason to reject the ideas that there is right and wrong (again, the Eightfold Path consists of eight "Right" aspects), that lasting satisfaction and happiness is possible in our lifetime, and that we are existent individuals that commit these actions (the Buddha's last words were encouraging each individual to commit to the practice after all!). As for what the full understanding of what Self/Soul is, we are fools if we think we can proclaim a complete answer with authority today with an unenlightened mind. Simply because the concept of no-Self fits nicely into a modern abstract philosophy, that is no reason to adopt it as fact.

We must face reality at times even though it may be unforgiving; is there no line that can't be crossed, or is almost anything acceptable? There are those that call their beliefs “Buddhist” today, who are following practices that are contradictory to what the Buddha taught, just as there are those that call their beliefs “Christian” today, who are teaching things nothing like that taught by Jesus of Nazareth.

As I pointed out with my use of intoxicants, I have not been a good example of a Buddhist practitioner. But we must first have our understanding straight, our philosophy correct, before we can fully practice it, and that is the stage at which I am currently working at. I feel it is important to first discard the inauthentic as such and the authentic as the correct teaching before we can fully engage in a practice that will lead to our liberation from suffering. I find the extreme doctrine of no-Self to be one such unauthentic teaching that lays as an obstacle for countless Buddhist practitioners today. If they are practicing with the assumption that the ultimate truth is a narrow interpretation of no-Self, and it turns out that that is not completely true, are they not undermining their entire practice? Are they not violating the Right View/Understanding stage of the Eight Fold Path, even if they are practicing the other seven parts correctly? I believe so. The Buddha taught The Four Noble Truths without putting a no-Selfii doctrine at its core, like many modern Buddhists do today, he never said the ultimate wisdom is wisdom of no-Self. (And by the way he also didn't say you had to be celibate to become enlightened!)

Attempting to apply the fanciful and abstract idea of absolute no-Self, and that there is really no good or evil, is philosophical presumption without any solid basis, presumption that does a disservice to the progress of humanity. Why such uncompromising words used in an essay on Buddhist thought? Precisely because the original authentic Buddhist thought is so intelligent, accurate and useful, so crucial for humanity (especially in the 21st century with the threat of human extinction), that I find any distortions of that teaching to be a big mistake. The teachings of the Buddha (along with the complimentary teachings of Lao Tzu and Jesus), to my eyes, could in large part be a savior of human civilization, so therefore any distortions of that Dharma serves the purpose of undermining any such salvation. Dramatic I know, but these are dramatic and tragic times in which we live.

The only way we can progress as individuals and as a civilization is to be operating on a foundation of true and correct principles and philosophical understanding. Once we stray from that solid foundation, we open up the gray area of distortion, corruption, doubt and confusion. This has been the most common state of humanity throughout history. Occasionally there have been teachers like Shakyamuni Buddha that have tried to show us the truth of this reality that they knew fully and experientially. Whenever we distort this truth, add or subtract to it, we undermine the mission for which they gave

their lives. We muddy the waters of clarity and understanding that is the only hope for us to survive as a species, our only hope to evolve out of the barbarism that still is infused in the human mind in the 21st century.

Ignorance can be seen to be the root of all suffering, as the Buddha taught. So we must be careful to not make assumptions, unverified by our own life experience, as to what the missing wisdom is exactly; that would be an expression of delusion. We should not arrogantly try to go beyond our own experienced truth, and the work given to us in the Noble Eightfold Path. Although the idea of no-Self may seem to be ultimate wisdom, are not other possibilities plausible? For example, there is the idea that instead of no Self, there is an eternal Self, which all beings share and came from during a time of absolute unity. Could not unity replace the term "emptiness" and be equally valid from a philosophically speculative and objective viewpoint? Let me be clear that this is not my personal conviction, for if it were I would be falling into the same mistake (namely the mistake of assuming) as those that are convinced of the doctrine of absolute no-Self. I am only trying to point out that there are other assumptions we could make about the nature of Self, but do any of those assumptions actually help us progress towards enlightenment? No, they just act as distractions, and a vehicle for Mara to gain a hold on our belief-system. I will repeat again the words of Thanissaro Bhikkhu because of their quality and relevance: “Although the concept "not-self" is a useful way of disentangling oneself from the attachments & clingings which lead to suffering, the view that there is no self is simply one of many metaphysical or ontological views which bind one to suffering." And the same goes for the "Buddhist" teaching that there is definitely no Creator of our reality of any kind; many "Buddhists" proclaim Atheism, like no-Self, to be central to the Buddha's teachings, when again, it was not. The doctrines of no-Divinity and no-Self are both metaphysical beliefs of unenlightened minds which can "bind us to suffering" in that they are assumptions not verified by our own experience; and remember, the path to enlightenment is all about removing distortions like assumptions from our minds, so we can perceive the Truth clearly.

Let’s take the Buddha's advice and not make assumptions about the full understanding of Self, so that we may be unheeded by wrong view in our progress toward enlightenment. For when we do achieve enlightenment then we will really understand the mystery of the Self, as well as why it may be best to leave this mystery unexpressed to those that cannot fully understand or benefit from it.

End-notes

i The following is from "Principles of Lay Buddhism" by R. Bogoda, which corroborates what I said concerning intoxicants:

“The Buddha's attitude toward stupefying drugs and intoxicants is clear and simple: complete abstinence from both. And why? The immediate aim of a Buddhist layman is happiness and security, here and now — in the present existence... Now, the one and only tool he has at his disposal to achieve both of these goals is the weapon of the mind, which, under the wise guidance of the Master's teaching, he gradually learns to use with skill, without ill to himself or others. And one of the best ways of impairing the efficiency of this precious mental instrument — to make it dull and blunt, is to partake of intoxicating drinks and drugs. Even when taken in moderation they have a pernicious influence on the mind and on the body, as well as on the character and the moral qualities. Under their baneful effects, mind becomes confused, and the drinker finds it difficult to distinguish between right and wrong, good

and bad, the true and false. Such a person, then, wrongs himself, wrongs those who live with him, and wrongs society at large. On the other hand, he who faithfully follows the Buddha's advice and abstains completely from the use of all intoxicants and harmful drugs, is always sober in mind, and is therefore able to exercise physical, mental, and moral control. Such a one has always a clear mind and can easily understand what is going on within, and also without, one's mind.”[quote found on http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel294.html]

ii Not only did the Buddha not teach that there is no Self whatsoever, in the Tathagatagarbha Sutra &

Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra he actually speaks of an eternal Self/Buddha-Nature within us; more

information on this, including the text of the actual Sutras, can be found at:

http://www.nirvanasutra.net

Again though the important thing to remember is that he emphasized focusing solely on dis-identifying

with the Five Aggregates; whatever wisdom you gain about Self after that is something to be

experienced, not contemplated or theorized about beforehand, because such theorizing will just distract

you and can hinder your progress following the Eightfold Path, which, it's good to also remember,

begins with Right View, not Right Assumption.

iii Please see the following for further explanation: https://sites.google.com/a/veganmail.com/nutrition-

animals/