Difference between Theravada's self and Mahayana's intrinsic essence

score:5

Accepted answer

1. Do other Mahayana Buddhists apart from the commentator above, also call the intrinsic essence (svabhava) of a chair, as the "self of chairs"?

Yes, this is a common expression in Mahayana texts on the topic.

2. If Theravada states "sabbe dhamma anatta" and Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma asvabhava", does it mean that anatta = asvabhava, and therefore, atta (self) = svabhava (intrinsic essence)?

I think Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma shunyata" - which can be explained as "sabbe dhamma asvabhavata" and "sabbe dhamma pratityasamutpida". From this it also follows that all dharmas are anicca (ephemeral) and dukkha (here, faulty/unreliable).

If we don't nitpick too much about the meaning of the equal sign, I think I can agree with your statements that "anatta = asvabhava" and "atta = svabhava". More on this in a second.

3. Depending on your view: if the Theravada atta (self) is different from the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then what really is the difference? OR if the Theravada atta (self) is same as the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then does that make the Mahayana emptiness a redundant concept?

I think svabhava is a broader concept than atman (atta). To me, atman is only one case of reification, or one case of attributing svabhava to abstractions and observations.

Therefore, Mahayana's emptiness is not redundant. True -- it is not something entirely new that was absent in Theravada, but in my opinion it gives proper emphasis to something that is kind of implicit and not explained enough in the Pali Canon (even if ever-present "between the lines").

Upvote:-2

An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena that can be described as that phenomena's self.

I said this in one of my answers but was scored down by the same Mahayana who believe in these ideas.

An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena CANNOT be described as that phenomena's self.

That a rock is 'hard' by nature is not its "self". That Nibbana is "peaceful" is not its "self". Such ideas are crazy. "Self" is "ego" & "possessiveness" ("I-making" & "mine-making").

“Rāhula, the interior earth element is said to be anything hard, solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This includes head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, or anything else hard, solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This is called the interior earth element. The interior earth element and the exterior earth element are just the earth element. This should be truly seen with proper understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ When you really see with proper understanding, you reject the earth element, detaching the mind from the earth element.

MN 62

Upvote:1

Here is some more support for the terminology of the "two selves" in Madhyamaka philosophy via Treasury of Precious Qualities:

We can see this in the example of the rope and the snake. When a distinction is made between persons and phenomena, a person is the subjective individual, such as "Devadatta," imputed upon his own collection of aggregates, which are the basis of such a labeling. By contrast, phenomena are Devadatta's aggregates, his eyes, for example, which act as the ground on which the person "Devadatta" is imputed. The term "phenomena" refers to all other things, in addition to the personal aggregates.

...

The "personal no-self" is the absence of inherent existence in the person. The "phenomenal no-self" is the absence of inherent existence in phenomena. This is understood by the "wisdom of realizing no-self." Persons and phenomena are, of course, said to exist on the conventional level.

This terminology is very common in Mahayana Madhyamaka literature and might have started with Chandrakirti which defines the terms in his Commentary on the "Four Hundred Stanzas":

“Self” is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The nonexistence of that is selflessness. Be- cause of the division into objects and persons, it is understood as twofold: a “selflessness of objects” and a “selflessness of persons.”

You can also find these two selves referred to as the self of pugdala (pali: puggala) and the self of dharmas (pali: dhammas):

Accordingly, upon finding no given thing of the two selves (pugdala and dharma), the nongiven thing of the refuted (two selves) is something rightly produced.

More post

Search Posts

Related post