Dear Ven. Sujato
I used to think that the Buddha claimed that there is no self, just as you are suggesting. However, after much contemplation on the various arguments put forth, including yours, I have concluded that Ajahn Thanissaro is correct. Below is my analysis of the topic.
Before getting into whether the self exists or not, it is useful to understand what it is for something to exist. The youtuber vsauce has a great video on the various philosophical developments in the area, his final conclusion not withstanding.
One can’t ask a question about what is (i.e. existence) without context. Taking an example from the video linked above:
Suppose that there is a wooden ship. Let us call this the ‘original ship’. This ship is repaired over time such that, in time, all of the original wood is replaced by new wood. Is it still the original ship? Now suppose that all of the old wood is taken and another ship is built. We now have two ships… so now the question is, which is the original ship?
Both questions are nonsensical without context. However, given adequate context the question makes sense. If ‘original ship’ is defined as the ship that was registered with the port authorities, the answer will be the ship with the new wood. The gradual replacement of old wood with new wood would not cause the port authorities to classify it as a new ship. Similarly, if ‘original ship’ is defined as the ship with the original wood, the answer will be the ship with the original wood. Thus, the answer to is it or is it not? is context dependent.
Suppose we now run into someone who claims that the original ship did not exist to begin with. Then we can ask: does the original ship not exist in the same way that a ship imagined in the mind doesn’t exist?. Clearly not. A passenger could ride the original ship from one physical destination to another. It would be difficult to ride an imaginary ship in the same way. We can see from this that an object’s existence is not only context dependent, as shown prior, but also dependent on whether it is causally linked with anything we care about. A passenger who wants to sail from England to America will say that the original ship exists because it is capable of helping them achieve that aim. In contrast, they would say that the imaginary ship doesn’t exist because it is incapable of helping them achieve that aim.
It is worth adding that the causal relationship does not need to be direct either. Taking a pebble as an example; nobody may have any special purpose or aim for the pebble. However, it is recognised to exist because it has the a potential to interact with its environment in predetermined ways. This interaction, in turn, has the potential to affect our lives in some way. For example, if the pebble got lodged in a shoe while walking, it may damage the shoe or foot.
Since the question of existence is dependent on context and causal relationships, something cannot be said to exist in an absolute sense. In the same way, it cannot be said to not exist in an absolute sense either.
To take the example of the imaginary ship. Suppose a person tried to ride the imaginary ship and drowned; one could say the person drowned trying to ride the imaginary ship. Clearly the imaginary ship didn’t have the property of providing safe passage over a body of physical water. However, it had the property of motivating someone to to behave in a way such that they would drown. Moreover, we can make a general predictive statement to the effect of anyone who tries to ride an imaginary ship will be unable to do so and may drown. Predictions about things or classes of things cannot be made unless those things exist within a given context. Therefore even the imaginary ship, under the right context, exists.
Since things can’t be said to exist nor not exist in an absolute sense, questions phrased in the following way make cannot be answered in a sensible way:
- Does X exist?
- Does X not exist?
- Does X both exist and not exist?
- Does X neither exist nor not exist?
If one were asked any of the four questions above, one would then need to ask: under what context?.
This is true regardless of what X is, even if X happens to be the ‘self’. However the ‘self’ is defined, its existence or or lack thereof is determined by the context within which that ‘self’ is posited and its causal relationships to aims.
This is true even of the unconditioned. The unconditioned can only exist in contradistinction to the conditioned.
From this we can see, in the Vacchagotta Sutta, that the Buddha likely didn’t answer Vacchagotta’s questions because they were incomplete.
Therefore I have come to the assessment that Ajahn Thanissaro was correct. The Buddha did not teach that there was ‘no self’ in an absolute sense because such a thing would make no sense. Rather, he taught ‘not self’ as a strategy for overcoming suffering.
We can also see this clearly from how existence is defined in the dictionary. The following is from Oxford Languages:
The meaning of ‘exist’: have objective reality or being.
The meaning of ‘objective’: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
The meaning of ‘fact’: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
The meaning of ‘true’: accurate or exact / accurately or without variation.
Going down the rabbit hole of definitions, we can see that existence is dependent upon truth and truth is dependent on invariability. To the extent that causal relationships hold, they are invariable. The extent to which causal relationships matter depends on context. So even using this route, things can’t be said to exist nor not exist in isolation. The context under which they are defined also defines their causal relationships or lack thereof. Only after contextualising a thing can one say that it either exists or doesn’t.
Similarly, the ‘self’ can’t be said to exist nor not exist in isolation either. The context within which that ‘self’ is defined is what determines that. Any time someone argues that there is a self or that there is no self, they unconsciously assume a context within which their statement is true. The assumed context comes from what that person knows and, since the person is unawakened, anything they know must be based on the aggregates. Since the Buddha teaches that the clinging aggregates cause suffering, any perception of ‘self’ or ‘non self’ that is framed by the aggregates is likely to cause suffering on account of the clinging involved (i.e. taking it to be ‘my self’, or paradoxically ‘my non self’).
Here, Ajahn Thanissaro’s explanation of the Buddha teaching ‘not self’ as a strategy makes sense. The Buddha would not have taught that there is ‘no self’, because it would lead people to cling to some combination of the aggregates, which would form the context for this ‘no self’. Rather, the Buddha would have taught people to gradually let go of defining any self within the context of the aggregates altogether. Defining a ‘self’ or ‘non self’ within the context of the aggregates leads to suffering on account of clinging to that ‘self’ or ‘non self’.
For example, to the extent that someone regards form as ‘self’, they would suffer on account of form, as that form changed. Likewise with the rest of the aggregates. To define the ‘self’ or ‘non self’ within the context of the aggregates is to invite clinging and suffering; and as mentioned above, it is impossible to define ‘self’ and ‘no self’ without context. So the solution is not to define the ‘self’ and ‘no self’ within such a context. Once this context is abandoned and clinging is eliminated, suffering cease. Once suffering ceases, there is then no need to look for a new context under which the ‘self’ could be defined.