by Dalai Lama
Prāsaṅgikas assert that the view of a personal identity is a form of the ignorance that is the root of cyclic existence; it is an innate affliction that is present in all sentient beings, including babies and animals, as an instinctive sense of an inherently existent I and mine. Its artificial form is expounded and justified by incorrect philosophies.
The view of a personal identity has two facets, one grasping I as inherently existent (ahaṃkāra, T. ngar ‘dzin pa) and the other grasping mine as inherently existent (mamakāra, T. nga yir ‘dzin pa). I refers to the person, while mine refers to what makes things mine. Based on grasping I, grasping at mine or my arises. The I and mine are one nature but different isolates; they cannot be separated but are nominally distinct.
Our aggregates are examples of mine — conventionally the five aggregates are said to be mine; they belong to the I. However, grasping them to be inherently existent is self-grasping of phenomena. The view of a personal identity grasps the mere I to be inherently existent and views the aggregates as being under the control of this person who makes things mine.
Once we designate something as mine — be it our bodies, minds, material objects, ideas, or relationships — we relate to it in a very different way. If a new car on the showroom floor is dented, we aren’t disturbed, but once we see this car as mine, we become incensed when a small scratch appears on it. My body being attractive or unhealthy invokes strong feelings of delight or worry; my ideas being accepted is a source of great pride.
Holding the strong notion of an inherently existent I, we cherish our selves more than anything else. Everything that gives us pleasure is seen as good; we cling to it and want more. All that interferes with our happiness or harms us is considered bad; we become hostile toward it and seek to destroy or avoid it. To obtain and protect our objects of attachment and to defend them against any harm, we engage in many destructive actions that harm others and plant seeds of destructive karma on our mindstreams that will ripen as future painful experiences.
Because the view of a personal identity is an erroneous consciousness that misapprehends the I, it can be eradicated through realizing the wisdom that knows how the I actually exists. Identifying the disadvantages of the view of a personal identity motivates us to cultivate this liberating wisdom.
Both the Pāli and Sanskrit traditions speak of twenty false views of a real self that stem from the view of a personal identity. The Shorter Series of Questions and Answers (Cūḷavedalla Sutta, MN 44) records a lay follower questioning Bhikkhunī Dhammadinnā about how the view of a personal identity comes to be. She responds:
An untaught ordinary person who has no regard for āryas and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma . . . regards (1) the body as the self, or (2) the self as possessing the body, or (3) the body as [contained] in the self, or (4) the self as [contained] in the body. He regards feelings as the self, or the self as possessing feelings, or feelings as [contained] in the self, or self as [contained] in feelings. He regards discrimination as the self, or the self as possessing discrimination, or discrimination as [contained] in the self, or self as [contained] in discrimination. He regards miscellaneous factors as the self, or the self as possessing miscellaneous factors, or miscellaneous factors as [contained] in the self, or the self as [contained] in miscellaneous factors. He regards consciousness as the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as [contained] in the self, or the self as [contained] in consciousness.
Pāli commentaries explain these four positions for each aggregate using the example of the relationship between the self and the body:
1. Regarding the body as self is like regarding the flame of an oil lamp as identical to the color of that flame.
2. Regarding the self as possessing the body is like regarding a tree as possessing its shadow.
3. Regarding the body as being in the self or being part of the self or dependent on the self is like regarding the scent as being in the flower. In the Sanskrit tradition, the analogy is a bag (I) with many items (aggregates) in it.
4. Regarding the self as being in the body or part of the body or dependent on the body is like regarding a jewel in a box. In the Sanskrit tradition, the analogy is the self being like a lion in a forest.
Regarding the first three, we may think, “The flame is not identical to its color, a tree does not really possess a shadow, and the scent is not in the flower, but a jewel can be in a box. Since this last analogy is true, perhaps the self is in the body.” To understand the analogy, we must ask ourselves if the relationship between the self and the body is like the relationship between a jewel and the box it is in. A jewel is a distinct phenomenon from the box and can be removed from the box and looked at alone without seeing the box. However, removing the self as an entity totally distinct from the body and looking at it in its own right, divorced from the body, is not possible because the self is dependent on the body. It is designated in dependence on the aggregates. Similarly, the lion is a distinct entity from the forest, whereas the I depends on the aggregates.
These twenty false views are not the view of a personal identity itself: the observed objects of the first and third are one of the aggregates and the observed objects of the second and fourth are the I. These false views are not innate grasping because, according to Prāsaṅgikas, view of a personal identity does not innately grasp the I as either inherently one with or entirely separate from the aggregates. Because the twenty false views present only these two possibilities and neither of them is how the view of a personal identity innately grasps the I, they are acquired false views. However, if the I inherently existed it would have to be one of four positions. Thus to refute the view of a personal identity, we must also refute these twenty.
View of extremes
The view of extremes is a corrupt intelligence that, referring to the I and mine apprehended by the view of a personal identity, regards them in either an absolutist or nihilistic manner. Based on grasping the I as inherently existent, view of the extremes holds either (1) an absolutist perspective that the I exists as an eternal, immutable soul or self that continues in future lives, or (2) a nihilistic outlook that the I becomes totally nonexistent after death, there being no continuum of the mere I in future lives. View of the extremes prevents us from finding the middle way view, free from the two extremes of absolutism and nihilism. It also causes us to neglect creating the virtuous causes for higher rebirth and liberation.
The absolutist view is also called the view of existence, eternalism,28 superimposition, or permanence because it projects a false mode of existence on the person. The nihilistic view is called the view of nonexistence, annihilation, or deprecation because it denies the continuity of the self that actually exists. In doing so, it negates future rebirth as well as the possibility of liberation and awakening. The Buddha spoke of this view, saying its holders think (SN 24.4), “I may not be, it may not be for me, I shall not be, it will not be for me.”
By identifying the view of extremes as erroneous, the Buddha clarified that although there is no inherently existent person, a conventionally existent person — the mere I — that is reborn and can attain liberation exists.
View holding erroneous views as supreme
The view holding wrong views as supreme is a corrupt intelligence that regards view of a personal identity, view of extremes, or wrong views as correct and supreme views, there being no higher views. It also views our own five aggregates as supreme, thinking there is no better body, feelings, and so forth. We ordinary beings easily become attached to our views, and the view holding wrong views as supreme functions to increase our attachment to erroneous views so that we arrogantly tout our wrong views as right ones. Holding erroneous views as supreme strongly holds to wrong views and serves as the basis for generating wrong views in this and future lives. It makes our minds very narrow and decreases our intelligence. While wrong views can be abandoned comparatively easily, when we hold them as supreme, they become deeply entrenched
in our minds and thus more difficult to overcome.
The four distorted conceptions regarding true duḥkha correspond with the first three afflictive views: Viewing that which lacks a self as having one is view of a personal identity. Viewing the impermanent as permanent is the eternalistic extreme view. Viewing the foul body as clean and viewing what is in nature unsatisfactory as pleasurable are the view holding erroneous views as supreme.
View of rules and practices
The view holding bad rules and practices as supreme is a corrupt intelligence that believes purification of mental defilements is possible by ascetic practice and inferior ethical codes that are inspired by erroneous views. It causes us to engage in useless actions that make us exhausted but bring no spiritual benefit.
View of rules and practices thinks that what are not causes for higher rebirth and liberation are causes for them and what is not the path to liberation is the path. Under its influence people engage in nonvirtue, believing it to be virtue, and follow a path they believe will lead to liberation that leads instead to unfortunate rebirths. Examples of this erroneous view include thinking that killing in the name of one’s religion will bring rebirth in a heavenly realm and that animal sacrifice pleases the gods and brings good fortune. Other instances are believing that the perfect performance of a ritual alone, without any mental transformation, is the path to liberation; that negativities can be purified by bathing in or drinking holy water; and that attachment is abandoned by extreme asceticism, such as fasting for days on end, walking through fire, or lying on a bed of nails. Although these people aspire for liberation, their aspiration remains unfulfilled.
Wrong views
Wrong views are a corrupt intelligence that denies the existence of something necessary to attain awakening that exists. This includes the denial of causes, saying that constructive and destructive actions don’t exist; denial of effects, believing that the results of constructive and destructive actions don’t exist; denial of functionality, believing that past and future lives are nonexistent; and denial of phenomena, asserting liberation, awakening, or the Three Jewels are nonexistent. These views are so damaging because when people hold them, they easily deny ethical responsibility for their actions and justify engaging in many destructive actions. Wrong views function to harm us because they serve as a basis for engaging in nonvirtue, cause us not to engage in virtue, and sever our roots of virtue. Adhering to wrong views cuts our opportunity to attain awakening.
In the Supreme Net Sutta (Brahmajāla Sutta) the Buddha spoke of sixty-two examples of wrong views advanced by various groups (DN 1.3.45–57):29
The Eternalists proclaim the eternity of the self and the world . . . those who are partly Eternalists and partly Non-Eternalists proclaim the partial eternity and the partial non-eternity of the self and the world . . . the Finitists and Infinitists proclaim the finitude or infinitude of the world . . . the Eel-wriggles resort to evasive statements . . . the Chance Originationists proclaim the chance origin of the self and the world . . . those who speculate about the past, having fixed views about the past . . . those who claim a doctrine of conscious postmortem survival . . . those who proclaim a doctrine of unconscious postmortem survival . . . those who proclaim a doctrine of neither-conscious-nor-unconscious postmortem survival . . . Nihilists proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and nonexistence of beings . . . (and) there are proclaimers [of a self that realizes] nibbāna here and now . . . speculators about the future . . . speculators about the past, the future, or both . . .
As we can see, just as in modern times, at the Buddha’s time too there were a plethora of views, each claiming to be the one correct truth.
The Buddha pinpointed three types of nihilistic views as views shunned by the wise because they do not bring liberation (MN 60, MN 76).
1. Nihilistic view denying the continuation of the person after death is often the result of a materialist outlook on life. In a modern context, it is thinking the mind is an emergent property of the brain, and since the brain ceases to function at death, so do the mind and the person. Since no one will experience the consequences of our actions in a future rebirth, as long as we avoid the authorities in this life, we won’t experience any adverse repercussions from our nonvirtuous actions and therefore can do as we please.
2. Nihilistic view denying the existence of constructive and destructive actions negates ethical distinctions among actions. Killing and torturing others is not destructive, so no unpleasant results of engaging in such actions will follow. Generosity and kindness are not constructive, so there is no use engaging in them.
3. Nihilistic view denying causation holds that there are no causes or conditions for either the defilement or purification of sentient beings — sentient beings are defiled and purified by either chance or fate, and there is nothing we can do to prevent suffering or attain liberation. Some people may believe in the randomness of happiness and pain because they cannot see the link between causes created in one life bringing effects in another life. Alternatively, they are fatalistic and believe that everything is controlled by destiny or by the will of the creator.
The Buddha did not say these views are wrong because they contradicted his ideas but because they are based on misunderstanding, limited knowledge, or distorted thinking and will lead those who hold them to create the causes for their own future suffering.
Wrong views may be spoken of in two ways. In general, they include all five afflictive views. More precisely, they differ from other views because of their object: they negate the existence of past and future lives, the Three Jewels, and the law of karma and its effects. Denying cause and effect is a serious wrong view, one that cuts the root of virtue.
Wrong views in the context of the ten paths of nonvirtue and in the context of the root afflictions differ slightly. The latter is more pervasive in that it includes not only negating what does exist — such as the Three Jewels and so forth — but also holding what does not exist — such as a creator god, or a metaphysical primal substance or universal mind — as the ultimate source of the world and the beings in it.
Wrong views cut the root of virtue gradually, not all at once. The roots of virtue decrease while the wrong views grow stronger. For example, although Sally practices generosity, her career does not advance. Meanwhile, she sees people who lie get promoted. The wrong view arises in her mind that it’s useless to create virtue. Slowly this idea grows stronger, so that even if her teacher tries to explain that her hindrances are due to destructive karma from the past and her present constructive actions will bring agreeable results in the future, she doesn’t listen. She completely dismisses the law of karma and its effects. Such an entrenched wrong view severs the root of virtue in her mind, destroying the seeds of virtue.
It is easy to glaze over wrong views in our own minds, believing them to be correct. Observing our views, assumptions, and beliefs and questioning their veracity helps us to become aware of wrong views we haven’t yet recognized. People who were raised in another religion may find that deep in their minds they still hold beliefs they were taught as children — beliefs in a creator, a soul, reward and punishment for ethical and unethical behavior, and so on. These may distort our understanding of Buddhist concepts that sound similar, and they hinder our understanding the teachings correctly. Examining them closely and using reason to decide what we believe is important to resolve the confusion wrong views cause.
Wrong views are based on ignorance and arise due to incorrect logic. They are especially difficult to abandon because the mistaken reasons and beliefs that are their basis must be dismantled. Due to strong attachment, some people are reluctant to reexamine their cherished beliefs and are thus resistant to hearing reasons that refute the assumptions at their basis. But when we are open and someone points out to us the absurd consequences that result from our wrong views, we begin to reevaluate our beliefs. Once we doubt an incorrect view, we can use reasoning to generate a correct assumption and then an inferential under
standing. As we do so, our minds become clearer and more peaceful.
Wrong views easily support unethical conduct. People who dismiss the law of karma and its effects and hold that there is no connection between our actions and our experiences may wave away any sense of responsibility for their actions. They believe that they can do anything they wish — including extortion, rape, and brutality — because their actions will not adversely affect themselves, the only possible consequence being arrest by the police, which they try to avoid.
Wrong views prevent people from attaining realizations of the path, liberation, and awakening. Someone with strong belief in an external creator will find the doctrine of emptiness uninteresting and make no attempt to learn or understand it. Someone who believes that sentient beings are inherently selfish does not think training our minds in compassion is worthwhile and considers the cultivation of bodhicitta a useless pursuit.