“No Such Thing as a Self”
(All things are devoid of selfhood)
In my view there are 4 main teachings in the Diamond Sutra. This is the second of the four I will present.
Chapters related to this teaching:
Chapter 3
“Because if a disciple still clings to the arbitrary illusions of form or phenomena such as an ego, a personality, a self, a separate person, or a universal self existing eternally, then that person is not an authentic disciple.”
Chapter 14
“Even then my mind was free of arbitrary conceptions of the phenomena of my self, a being, a soul, or a universal self.”
Chapter 17
“If a disciple cherishes the idea of a self, a person, a living being or a universal self, then that person is not an authentic disciple. Why? Because in fact there is no independently existing object of mind called the highest, most fulfilled, and awakened mind.”
“A true disciple knows that there is no such thing as a self, a person, a living being, or a universal self. A true disciple knows that all things are devoid of selfhood, devoid of any separate individuality.”
Chapter 23
“It is wholly independent of any definite or arbitrary conceptions of an individual self, other selves, living beings, or a universal self.”
Chapter 25
“In truth there is not one single being for the Buddha to lead to Enlightenment. If the Buddha were to think there was, he would be caught in the idea of a self, a person, a living being, or a universal self. Subhuti, what the Buddha calls a self essentially has no self in the way that ordinary persons think there is a self”.
Chapter 31
“If any person were to say that the Buddha, in his teachings, has constantly referred to himself, to other selves, to living beings, or to a universal self, what do you think, would that person have understood my meaning?”
My commentary on these passages:
The Buddha doesn’t clarify what he means by a “self”, but he mentions he is speaking about the term and concept “in the way that ordinary persons think there is a self”.
He seems to be referring to “self” as what we consider to be an independent identity, and what we feel is an unchanging “core” of one’s being.
vocabulary.com defines self as: “Your self is your sense of who you are, deep down — your identity”.
Furthermore, I think he is meaning the term in a sense that is similar to what we might consider the “soul” to be.
One definition of soul I found was: “the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life”.
So these definitions of self, and soul etc. are open to interpretation, but seem to be what the Buddha was referring to.
However, what I think the Buddha is driving at in these passages, is that there is nothing “unchanging” at our core – there is nothing permanent at our core.
To me, the message here is that there is no permanent core identity that exists within a person.
The idea is that there is no permanant core identity in any being, and that we live in connection to, and relationship with, all other things.
This feeling that there is something separate and unchanging in our being is a deeply ingrained impression and belief, that is really only an illusion.
Recognizing this illusion can help to break the chains of attachment – and perhaps help to open our minds to the reality of impermanence and emptiness.
Summary:
I don’t think the Buddha denies that there is a “conventional self” – a feeling of coherency in a consistent collection of traits that tend to describe the inner and outer feelings and experiences of a person.
What he is calling an illusion is the feeling of an “ultimate self”, permanent self or soul.
That internal feeling, that belief – is an illusion.