Concept Of An Ego-entity (sakkaya-ditthi)

The most formidable fetter is not the “I” consciousness or the consciousness of self, but the delusion of self. The consciousness of self would be the awareness of the real nature of ourselves. This is extremely rare, as we are mostly aware only of certain reactions which the environment has caused. Frequently we are not even aware that we react at all, and our actions amount to little more than mechanical responses to certain stimuli. This, of course, can never lead to the understanding of reality for so long as the current thoughts cannot detach themselves and are merely products of the environment, one cannot have detached view, one but form a part of the mechanical process of the universe, which one sees from inside, moving with and moved by the current of events without individuality, without the consciousness of self. It is the absence of such consciousness which produce this fetter of misconception of individuality.

The mechanistic world-view does not consider the mind as something separate from matter, and in this the Materialists are quite right. But are they not going too far, when they try to reduce mental reaction to the simple level of chemical reactions? Certainly, matter and material objects form conditions on which depends the arising of thoughts. Again, the grey matter of the brain together with the nervous system form the necessary instruments by which man thinks. And yet, all these materials brought together artificially, i.e., outside a living organism, do not produce thought.

It is with the recognition of these facts that the theory of annihilationism is rejected. But many, while freeing themselves from the rigid bonds which reduce man to a machine, have run away too far, have gone to the very opposite, which is the fetter of misconception of individuality as a separate I-entity. It is this glorified “self” which becomes a spiritual soul endowed with everlasting life. It is the delusion of self.

And how does consciousness become “self” – delusion? Thoughts arise dependent on contract with sense objects. The impressions of the environment on the senses produce reactions in the individual. Repeated reactions are differentiated and classified in different groups according to some common characteristics, in which process many particulars are overlooked, so that finally a sensation is judged as acceptable or not, i.e., agreeable or disagreeable. Subsequent events are similarly judged, compared, registered, by which process the faculty of memory is born.

Memory is thus a retention of past experiences. But those past experiences have been retained only partly to make classification possible. In other words, what the memory has learned from experience is extremely imperfect and entirely based on reaction to a changing environment which was not understood, which was accepted because it was agreeable, or rejected because it was disagreeable. The registration of these reactions, based on half understood untruths, forms the standard by which new experiences are judged and classified. Thus it happens that no event is judged purely on its own merits, for it is always measured according to the old standard. Every new thought is thus guided by past thoughts, conveyed in direction particular to that individual, shaped and moulded until finally, tendencies are fixed and one’s character stereotyped.

In this process of fixation of character is born a sense of separation which causes all inner limitations and isolations, which form so many bonds and fetters, preventing growth and movement. Where consciousness of self would see a process of action, ever becoming and always new, there the delusion of self, sees a separation, permanent individualism, creating a “self” or a “soul” which is not only the recipient but also the custodian of all past experiences. The retention of part experiences prevents the full understanding of present and new experiences, while even the old ones have lost their value because they are dead and pass and were never fully understood. And yet the understanding or rather the realization of truth is only possible, if the individual process is understood. But as long as the reaction to the past prevents the full comprehension of the present, there cannot be true intelligence, though there may be knowledge.

Naturally, from this unnatural way of living in a dead past, from the lack of understanding the present environment, arises disharmony which is a conflict which only strengthens the opposition based on the delusion of self because this very conflict is classed as undesirable, i.e. not in harmony with the tendencies of “self”. Thus the delusion of self as a separate, isolated, permanent entity, which looks at the environment with the hostile eyes wherewith a house-owner would view a nightly intruder, become stronger with each new experience, always withdrawing deeper and deeper into the self-protective shell of its dead past.

When the delusion of self sees isolation and permanence in individuality, there the consciousness of self sees an ever new becoming process of action. Where delusion of self lives on the past, consciousness of self lives on the present, - and is the present. True and full intelligence shows itself in the perfect action of the present moment, which solves the actual conflict – not by forcing it into the mould of past experiences, thereby killing the present, nor by projecting it through purposeful striving into a future not yet born – but by the understanding of “self” as a process of reaction to environment. It is the binding of one’s individuality to the dictates of the environment, expressed as laws of society and convection, religious prohibitions and selfish fears, traditions, habits, and customs – it is the binding to the environment, which constitutes the fetter of the delusion of self, a fetter which can be broken only through the understanding of that environment of which the individual is a mere product. The understanding of “self” as a reaction makes it one with the ever changing environment, dissolves the delusion of the separateness, dispels the misconception of opposites and thereby ends the conflict.

To seek a method of breaking this spell of self-delusion would amount to the forging of a new fetter. The only thing to do is to live completely in the present, to change over from reaction to action, so that every moment a new creation, not brought about by reaction like attraction or repulsion, but an independent action which alone is capable of giving true freedom and deliverance.

Fetters

The search for Truth, for realization, emancipation and enlightenment assume to most people the form of a positive quest. They even personify the object of their search, which become a pursuit of God or the Absolute. Though great spiritual men have declared that ‘the kingdom of God is within thee’, the search becomes a pursuit of an objectified imagination. But a ‘running after’ is also a running-away, an escape. In this pursuit, however, and not before, man feels that he is fettered, and his longing to be free, in order to become united with the object of his spiritual desire, become stronger. Feeling his impotency to break those chains with which he is fettered – whence he knows not – he tries to obtain help from outside. But in relying upon outside help he goes further and further away from the ‘kingdom’ within, and he merely makes new bonds which tie him down even stronger than before.

It is only the man who searches within that feels the weight of his fetters. There are millions who perceive no bond whatever and feel themselves free in the gratification of their sense-desire. Still, their very search for ever greater satisfactions of the sense proves the emptiness of their lives, which are bound by the gross chains of the flesh.

True freedom, real emancipation, cannot be had by running away with the fetters, with which we are shackled nor by amusing ourselves within the prison walls, nor by clinging to them, but by breaking those fetters and prison walls, which have been forged by tradition, convention, society and religion. To break these fetters we must know them, realize that they are fetters and not supports. When this is understood, it produces pure action (kriya), i.e. not action (kamma) which produces reaction (vipaka), as such action itself is a reaction to an environment which we have not understood. And this pure action without purposeful striving will break the spell of delusion, the fetters which keep us bound.

Delusion is intensified by the abuse of language. Sarcastically it has been said, that words are used to hide our thoughts. If we mean one thing, but we say something else, it can only lead to greater confusion. In the following pages words like ‘mind’ and ‘cause’ have not been use, except in connection with the views of others, because there is nothing corresponding to these sounds. “Mind” is the act of thinking, which may be more or less perfect in awareness, but remains action nevertheless. Mind in the sense of something which can think, is non-existent. Similarly “cause” in the ultimate sense does not exist outside the faith of the pious believer in God. Hence preference is given to expression like “condition”. It would have been good, if words like “I” and “Self” could have been omitted, for they too represent a non-existing entity; but their avoidance would cripple the language so much that speaking and writing would become impossible.

According to Buddhism there are ten fetters that bind beings to the samsaric existence. The texts enumerate them as follows: sakkaya ditthi, vicikiccha, silabbata paramasa, kamaraga, vyapada, ruparaga, aruparaga, mana, uddhacca, avijja. The first five of these are called the ‘lower fetters’ as they bind beings to the sensuous world. The latter five, ‘higher fetters’ because they bind beings to fine material and immaterial worlds. These fetters are gradually got rid of with the attainment of four spiritual stages.

Female Principle

The dual nature of the human being as the male and the female with their physical as well as intellectual and emotional differences is a fact that has to be admitted in any system of human thought. The problem of life is more or less the problem of the relationship between the two aspects of life, the male and the female, as symbolized by man and woman respectively in the phenomenal world. The teaching of Gotama being a practical solution to the problem of life’s conflicts, the question as regards the place he has accorded to the sexual polarity of man in his teaching is an important one.

In early Buddhism as handed down in the Pali literature of the Theravadins the comprehensive term brahmacariya (pure life) covers the entire content of the noble life as understood by Gotama. The most important feature of this higher life was the sexual purity of the practice. It means chaste living.

From one point of view it can be said that man, symbolizing the male principle of the universe, represents the active side of life while the woman, symbolizing the female principles of the universe, represents the passive side of life. In other words they symbolize the positive and the negative aspects respectively of one life-principle. But the two symbols cannot be torn as under from each other. Their appear separation in the empirical world is only a relative truth or a mere actuality. In an absolute sense there is no duality and the realization of this non-duality is the purpose of the religious life. In the world of actuality it is the combination of these two representatives of life-force that produces the individual and in the absolute sense it is the separation of the one from the other that creates the sexual duality in the world of actuality. Whether we view if from the absolute or from the relative point of view, it becomes clear that the male has his female nature and the female has her male nature within their own psych-physical organizations. The fundamental difference is that in the male the active qualities predominate while in the female passive qualities are preponderant. In other words in every man his femininity is present within him, while in every woman her masculinity is present within her. The purpose of the religious life is the realization of this unity in the apparent duality. If any man were able to bring about a perfect balance between the male and the female natures within him, he would become a complete man who has transcended sexual duality. This applies to the woman as well. This, in short, is the meaning of the observances of chastity as a road to perfection as taught by Gotama Buddha under the term brahmacariya. This is the reason why sexual offences are said to make a bhikkhu fall away from the pure life he is expected to follow. A bhikkhu who has had sexual intercourse with a woman ceases to be noble. A man who undertakes to lead the pure life honestly must try to realize the unity of the male and the female qualities that are within him. For him there is no man or woman other than himself. This holds true for the woman as well. In a way the realization of the perfect union of man and woman within oneself is the true ‘sexual union’ for him or her. This kind of union appropriately designated as yoga in Indian philosophy, instead of tying one down to samsara releases one from it. It is psycho-physical meditational process aimed at realizing the non-duality state of the individual. It is the complete sublimation, but is no way the suppression of carnal desires. This is the philosophical truth based on which Buddhism upholds monogamous sexual relations between man and woman. A person who can sublimate his sexual desires this way by seeking union with the male and female qualities within oneself would be extremely difficult to regulate, let alone transcend it. This mutual attraction itself is the result of the necessity and the desire on the part of man and woman for union. But mere sexual union never offers a solution to the problem. Instead it increases problems in many ways. The truth is that so long as a man or woman has not completed his or her own self by realizing the unity of the two sexes within oneself one has either to give in to the desires or suppress them. The true union between man and woman is something that transcends carnal appetite and the realization of this kind of transcendent love is the purpose of true love between the male and the female. The Greek conception of Platonic love is some thing analogous to this. It is the union with the Eternal Female, the mahamudra.

It is possible either to suppress sexual desire or to put an end to such desire by pandering to them. From the Buddhist point of view both these methods will increase one’s dukkha and in psychological language the victims of both these tendencies are split-personalities. He who suppress his desire is bound to become a mental patient or a pervert and the one who panders to every desire would end up as a physical and mental wreck. Satisfying the flesh in the latter way comes within the extremes of self-indulgence, while the killing of all desires by suppression is the other extreme, designated as self-mortification. For the achievement of the true yoga both these extremes have to be avoided and that is the purpose of the Buddhist way of life.

While the term brahmacariya in early Buddhism taught this path to perfection by sublimating the sexual desires, in the later phase of Buddhism generally designated as Tantrism the question is looked from a different angle. In early Buddhism, as could be gathered from the pitakas, the concept of the female principle is not treated as separate topic. Not even the male principle has been a serious topic of study for those thinkers of Gotama’s caliber. This might have been due to the fact that the intellectual environment of the Buddha’s time was one in which the problems or life were viewed from other angles, at least in Buddhist circles. In general, certain section of society seem to have believed in the sublimation of sex and the achievement of yoga through a life of chastity and this is the main theme of the pitakas, too.

When one considers the relative aspects of early and later Buddhism, as designated by the terms Hinayana and Mahayana, one can see that the idea of the female principle has been given more significance in later Buddhism in contrast to the place given to it in the early teaching. In early Buddhism, with the Buddha as the central figure, the male principle is more emphasized than its counterpart. The Buddha’s personality predominated in the entire teaching and he being a male, those who preserved the Theravada tradition seem to have overlooked the significance of the female aspect of existence. In the Theravada tradition the Buddha himself came to be treated as an ascetic who transcended the world, to be worshipped and revered, rather than as a practical man who had perfected his character both in theory and in practice. There was more theory than practice and the Theravada monks more or less became intellectual recluses divorced from the practicalities of life. But to counterbalance this there developed what is commonly called the Bodhisattva-ideal which attached equal importance to both theory and practice. Those who advocated this ideal treated the Buddha not as an escapist ascetic but as a practical and a perfect man. If Buddha is the symbol of such perfection of the male principle, why cannot there be a similar symbol of perfection of the female principle, there later Buddhism seem to have argued. It is true that there was no historical female Buddha on record. But the female side of life also could achieve perfection and enlightenment. The Buddha, as a male, has achieved perfect equilibrium between the male and female aspects of life by transcending sexual duality. And if the Buddha symbolizes this rare phenomenon as a man there can easily be a symbol representing the female achieving the same perfection. This resulted in the concept of the personalized Prajfiaparamita, depicted to a female symbolizing the perfection of wisdom, and which is one of the most important concepts of the Mahayana. Just as the Buddha, as a metaphysical concept, symbolizing the possibility of man’s achievement of perfection in the female form. Both are above the mundane difference of sex. Sophia of the Christian Gnostics and Surasvati of the Hindus are two other well-known concepts analogue to this Buddhist ideas of Prajfiaparamita.

As it was pointed out earlier, original Buddhism pays little attention to female deities, although the gods referred to are numerous. Whatever might have been the reasons for this, Buddhist India seems to have paid less attention to female deities than the male ones. This same trend of thought is reflected in the early Buddhist literatures of the Pali Canon, too. Hardly any place is given to female deities and as such it is natural that there was no possibility for a concept like that of Prajfiaparamita to develop in it. The practice of worshipping a goddess, which might have been a salient feature among the pre-Aryan Indians of the Indus Valley, seems to have greatly diminished in Vedic times and lost its significance in Buddhist India. But, with the development of the Mahayana, the worship of goddesses, influenced also by the Sakti cult of the Hindus, gradually assumed significance in Buddhism. There were tow sides to this development which can roughly be assigned to the 7th century A.C.. Both aspects are to be seen in what is popularly known as Tantric Buddhism. One line of development was in the direction of popular religion wherein magical practices such as mantras mandalas, mudras were given a place. It was in this same form of religion that at times erotic excesses were also resorted to. As can be judged from certain statements in texts like the Guhyasamaja-tantra, the symbols meaning of the realization of perfect wisdom seems to have been forgotten and a kind of magical Buddhism invented. The idea of Prajfiaparamita was the other line of development, where pure wisdom was regarded as a chaste and unapproachable goddess, transcending all sexual differences and as such regarded as the female counterpart of the Buddha. In this concept wherein the Buddha and Prajfiaparamita are regarded as symbols of perfection of the male and of the female principles of life, respectively, the two terms perfection and enlightenment have become synonymous. Unlike ordinary gods and goddesses who emphasize, by their bi-sexuality the polarity of the male and the female principles, the two concepts of Buddha and of the Prajfiaparamita both reveal the ecstatic state of undifferentiated sex, the ‘original man and woman’ as it were, in their undivided state of non-duality.

In Buddhism this concept has nothing to do with the practice of worshipping a goddess as a symbol of the creating energy of the universe in a divine form as in Saktism. The Hindu concept of Sakti symbolizes the creative power of the universe in female form whereas in Buddhism Prajfiaparamita symbolizes perfect wisdom, which by implication is tantamount to release, too, because she represents the female aspect of the Buddha. Hindu Sakti corresponds to the female aspect not of the Buddha, but of Siva as a personal god. The following words of Lama Anagarika Govinda may be quoted in this respect: “….Buddhist Tantrism is not Saktism. The concept of Sakti, of divine power, of the creative female aspect of the highest god (Siva) or his emanations does not play any role in Buddhism. While in the Hindu Tantras the concept of power (sakti) forms the focus of interest, the central idea of Tantric Buddhism is prajfia: knowledge and wisdom.”

“To the Buddhist Sakti is maya, the very power that creates illusion, from which only prajfia can liberate us…..” Elsewhere be further says “….even those Buddhist Tantras which build their symbolism upon the polarity of the male and the female, never represent the female principle as sakti, but always as its contrary, namely prajfia (wisdom), vidya (knowledge), or mudra (the spiritual attitude of unification, the realization of Sunyata). Herewith they reject the basic idea of Saktism and its world-creating eroticism.

It is this kind of perfect and undifferentiated union of the male and the female principles that is portrayed in Tibetan art as yab-yum or yuganaddha. The visual artist could not portray this all-important idea of yoga without showing man and woman in an embrace of eternal union. In such portrayals the figures are not sexual beings and “even their aspect of union is undoubtedly associated with the highest spiritual reality in the process of enlightenment so that associations with the realms of physical sexuality are completely ignored”. It is by taking these figures on their face-value as sexual being that they are very often interpreted as crude eroticism or religious blasphemy. Sexual attraction between the male and the female merely for the flesh is due to the absence of Samadhi within the individuals concerned. The union of the two in a transcendental sense means the sublimation of all base emotions and the Buddha and Prajfiaparamita symbolize the acme of this sublimation in the man and the female, respectively. In that state there is no raga, dvesa or moha no avidya and no tsna. It is the state of becoming one with the highest.

Philosophically it would be quite correct to say that the struggle of man centre round his perennial attempt at achieving perfect union with the second part of his split personality, the female. It is the same from the point of view of the female, too. If this union is achieved perfectly in a transcendental sense as so far discussed the struggle ceases with the cessation of the conflict between the two principles. Sexual differences between the male and the female are obtained only in the world of relativity (samsara) and the existence of such differences in only a relative truth. One who transcends this state of duality realizes the absolute, the ultimate state of integration, where no duality whatsoever exists. It is the uncreated state of the void which is aptly described by Govinda in the following words: “The becoming conscious of this sunyata is prajna: highest knowledge. The realization of this highest knowledge is enlightenment, i.e., if prajna (or sunyata), the passion, all-embracing female principle, from which everything recedes, is united with the dynamic male principle of active universal love and compassion, which represents the means for the realization of prajna and sunyata, then perfect Buddhahood is attained. Because intellect without feeling, knowledge without love, reasons without compassion, leads to pure negation, to rigidity, to spiritual death, to mere vacuity, while feeling without reason, love without knowledge (blind love), compassion without understanding, leads to confusion and dissolution. But when both sides are united, where the great synthesis of heart and head, feeling and intellect, highest love and deepest knowledge have taken place, there completeness is re-established, perfect Enlightenment is attained.

“The process of Enlightenment is therefore represented by the most obvious , the most human and at the same time the most universal symbol imaginable: the union of male and female in the ecstasy of love-in which the active element is represented as a male, the passive by a female figure-in contrast to the Hindu Tantras, in which the female aspect is represented as sakti, i.e., as the active principle, and the male aspect as Siva, as the pure state of divine consciousness, of ‘being’, i.e., as the passive principle, the ‘resting in its own nature.’

“In Buddhism symbolism the knower (Buddha) becomes one with his knowledge (prajfia), just as man and wife because one in the embrace of love, and this becoming one is highest, indescribable happiness. The Dhyani-Buddhas (i.e. the ideal Buddhas visualized in meditation) and Dhyani-Bodhisattvas as embodiments of the active urge of enlightenment, which finds its expression in upaya, the all-embracing love and compassion, are therefore represented in the embrace of their prajfia, symbolized by a female deity, the embodiment of highest knowledge”.

It is in this way that the attainment of Nirvana, the unconditioned state, as the state of absolute beauty, has to be explained from the standpoint of the sexual polarity of the male and the female principles, which, of course, is a mere incident of universal polarity.