Intrusive Interpolations in the Potthapada Sutta -- Part II

In part 1, I argued that there were interpolations made to the Potthapada Sutta as the result of systemization. In this second part, I will continue to build upon my argument by demonstrating that the concluding sections of the sutta exhibit the same problems of interpolations which result in obscuring the main purport of the text.

In the second half of the sutta the Buddha talks about the realities of the perceived self or atta-patilabha to a wanderer named Potthapada.

After the Buddha describes to Potthapada the wanderer that his soteriological goal is to abandon the acquired self, he asks Potthapada a series of questions:

Suppose they were to ask you: 'Did you exist in the past? Did you not not exist? Will you exist in the future? Will you not not exist? Do you exist now? Do you not not exist?' Thus asked, how would you answer?

Potthapada replies that he would say, “I existed in the past. I did not not exist. I will exist in the future. I will not not exist. I exist now. I do not not exist.”

Here the Buddha is asking a direct question on Potthapada’s perceived existence over time. There is no talk of past lives, and when the Buddha is asking Potthapada whether he “exist[ed] in the past,” it can only be construed that the Buddha is inquiring into the life that Potthapada can perceive here and now.

Hearing the wanderer’s answers, the Buddha continues:

Suppose, Citta, they were to ask you: 'Whatever your past acquisition of a self: Is that alone your true acquisition of self, while the future & present ones are null & void? Whatever your future acquisition of a self: Is that alone your true acquisition of a self, while the past & present ones are null & void? Whatever your present acquisition of a self: Is that alone your true acquisition of a self, while the past & future ones are null & void?' Thus asked, how would you answer?

...Thus asked, lord, I would answer: 'Whatever my past acquisition of a self: on that occasion, that alone was my true acquisition of a self, while future & present ones were null & void. Whatever my future acquisition of a self: on that occasion, that alone will be my true acquisition of a self, while the past & present ones will be null & void. Whatever my present acquisition of a self: on that occasion, that alone is my true acquisition of a self, while the past & future ones are null & void.'

It is important to note here that the only difference between this question and the previous one is the Buddha's elaboration of the "I" into the “true acquisition of a self.” The Buddha is doing this in an effort to help Potthapada to draw a connection between the "I" and the "acquired self" in order to shift the understanding of the “I” from a presupposed thing to an acquired concept.

The key here is that these passages have nothing to do with establishing the reality of an ontological self. On the contrary, the passages seem to move in the opposite direction by implying that the “I” is not something someone has but mentally acquires.

In an abrupt shift, the sutta continues with Buddha expounding an ontological view of the self that startlingly resembles the Upanishad's:

In the same way, Citta, when there is a gross acquisition of a self... it's classified just as a gross acquisition of a self. When there is a mind-made acquisition of a self... When there is a formless acquisition of a self, it's not classified either as a gross acquisition of a self or as a mind-made acquisition of a self. It's classified just as a formless acquisition of a self.

Just as when milk comes from a cow, curds from milk, butter from curds, ghee from butter, and the skimmings of ghee from ghee. When there is milk, it's not classified as curds, butter, ghee, or skimmings of ghee. It's classified just as milk. When there are curds... When there is butter... When there is ghee... When there are the skimmings of ghee, they're not classified as milk, curds, butter, or ghee. They're classified just as the skimmings of ghee.

The passage appears to convey the idea that once you have acquired one of the three selfs, for example, the gross self of the body, that acquired self will persist as long as one can maintain it. Once that particular self changes to another type, for example, a gross self changing into a formless self (presumably after death), nothing is left behind from what it was before. While the self’s overall form may change, like milk changing into butter, the underlying essence that keeps the self together still persists (butter is still milk but simply has a different appearance and consistency).

What is amazing about this passage is that the Buddha seems to be conveying a Vedic view of the self which blatantly contradicts the Buddha’s notion of anatta or not-self.

Interestingly the sutta continues with the Buddha concluding, “Citta, these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them.”

Even though in the very last passage the Buddha is depicted as presenting a Vedic notion of the self, we are summarily reminded that the Buddha’s mentioning of the self is just a worldly expression that is used to express an idea and by no means used to designate an actual underlying reality.

What is going on here?

Before answering this question, it is important to reexamine the milk simile which seems to be the core element of the Buddha’s argument. The first thing that is interesting about this simile is that it refers to a total of five different states (milk, curds, butter, ghee, skimmings of ghee) yet there are only three different types of acquired selfs (gross, mind and formless). The second issue with the simile is that there is a fundamental difference between milk transition states and self transition states. In the case of milk, once a state has transitioned into another state there can be no reversal to the previous one, for example, ghee cannot be turned back into butter. However, with the three different kinds of self, this is not the case. It is quite easy to see, for example, the gross self transitioning into a mind made self which can transition back to the gross self.

What is suspicious about the Buddha alluding to the gross self, mind-made self and the formless self as being merely “world’s expressions” or conventional forms of speech is that no one in ancient India referred to themselves via these three different types of selves as if they were common expressions that everyone immediately knew what one was referring to.

The central problem behind all these interpretive issues stems from the idea of an ontological notion of the self as a “thing” that is acquired. If we can for the moment understand the self as a conventional conceptual entity a person is attributed with or acquires, and look at these passages from this perspective, we find that all the issues raised suddenly dissipate.

For example, if we look at the milk simile and understand the various different maturation stages of milk as being analogous to the different maturation stages of individual (baby, boy/girl, adolescent, man/woman, old man/old woman) everything makes sense. Like milk that transitions irreversibly from one stage to the next so does an individual.

What more, the usage of the terms baby, boy, adolescent, man and so on are conventional terms unlike the three selfs.

Understanding the simile in this way makes the central point a lot more transparent. The chief idea being is that the various stages are just expressions that capture a particular stage of a process that is continually changing through time. The fact that we use such terms does in no way indicate an underlying essential entity. What one may mistake as a concrete permanent entity is simply a process of change that we habitually abstract and reify an ontological concept out of.

Conclusion

The Potthapada Sutta is a profound sutta which demonstrates the Buddha’s view on the self. Through interpolations linked with scholarly systemization, the central purport of the sutta has unfortunately been obscured. By interpreting the key passages from the perspective of the conceptual self in this life instead of three types of selves in subsequent future lives, it becomes clear that the Buddha is expounding the notion of anatta and not an explanation of the continuity of a life through rebirth as the common traditional interpretations have posited.