Off his rocker
Does Buddhism teach non-ego or even ego? The short answer is absolutely not. The terms non-ego and ego are strictly Western terms that have been introduced into Buddhism which have no parallels in the actual discourses of the Buddha.
Ego is a calque. It nowhere comes close to the range of meanings that the Sanskrit word âtman or Pali attâ contain. There is so much variance between the terms, ego and âtman/attâ that it is astonishing that the term ego would be used in a translation (in fact, it is not which means translators have recognized its inadequacy).
Let's take an accepted Pali translation and for the word 'self' (attâ), substitute 'ego'.
"Bhikkhus, form is non-ego. What is non-ego should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my ego.' Feeling is non-ego... Perception is non-ego...Volitional formations are non-ego...Consciousness is non-ego. What is non-ego should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my ego.'" (S.iii.22–23).
Notice how this translation is not in favor of the non-ego but actually strikes against non-ego. We can see that the Buddha understood the non-ego, namely, the Five Aggregates, to not be his ego. In other words, the Buddha is upholding his ego against the non-ego!
A brief aside, taking into consideration that the Five Aggregates also belong to Mara, who is the Buddhist devil , it is rather odd that the world of evil is non-ego—never ego.
The case grows against the strategy of using the specialized Western terms, non-ego and ego, as adequate equivalents of anâtman/anattâ and âtman/attâ. Once more, substituting 'ego' for self (attâ) in an accepted Pali translation, we discover this oddity: "Radha, you should abandon desire for whatever is non-ego" (S. iv. 49). Here is one more example using the same kind of substitution.
"Therefore, Ananda, stay as those who have their ego as an island, as those who have the ego as refuge, as those who have no other refuge; as those who have the dharma as an island, as those who have dhamma as refuge, as those who have no other refuge" (Mahaparinibbana Sutta).
Rather than go into the many different meanings of 'ego' that have evolved, beginning with Freud, it suffices to say that any Buddhist who drags in the terms ego and non-ego as adequate substitutions for self (âtman/attâ) and no-self (anâtman/anattâ), is off his rocker.
Comments
Post a Comment