“Refutation of the Theory of a Self” was composed by the Indian Buddhist philosopher known as Vasubandhu (c. fourth/fifth century C.E.). The “Refutation,” which Vasubandhu placed at the end of his encyclopedic Abhidharmakośa, contains a classic statement of the Buddhist theory of the selflessness of persons.
In the following selection from the “Refutation,” Vasubandhu begins by arguing that persons are not selves. He identifies selves as persons who are substantially real in the sense that they possess an essence (svabhāva), which is that by virtue of which they both possess person-properties and exist apart from being conceived. They are not substantially real, he believes, because they do not possess person-properties apart from being conceived in dependence upon the causal continuum of the elements of their bodies and minds, which the Buddha called their aggregates. Person-properties are the defining properties of the objects to which we refer when we use the first-person singular pronoun to refer to ourselves. These properties include our being possessors of bodies and minds, perceivers of objects, thinkers of thoughts about these objects, single agents of actions and experiencers of their results, and so on. The aggregates, in dependence upon which person-properties are ascribed to us, are generally classified into the five categories of bodily forms, feeling, discrimination, volitional forces, and consciousness. According to all Indian Buddhist philosophers, when in dependence upon our aggregates we conceive ourselves from the first-person singular perspective and ascribe person-properties to ourselves, we create a false appearance of ourselves as selves, and our assent to this appearance is the root cause of our suffering in cyclic existence.
Vasubandhu begins by claiming that there is no liberation from suffering for those who mistakenly see themselves as selves. According to Yaśomitra, his Indian commentator, Vasubandhu is here referring to the Tīrthikas, who are proponents of non-Buddhist philosophical theories according to which liberation from suffering is attained when we fully realize that we are substances that exist apart from our aggregates. Vasubandhu does not think that our most fundamental mistaken view of ourselves is seeing ourselves as separate substances, since we do not appear to ourselves to be substances that exist apart from our aggregates, but as possessors of essences. He rejects the Tīrthikas’ theory because he thinks that if we were substances that exist apart from our aggregates, we would, but do not, possess both existence and at least some person-properties apart from being conceived in dependence upon the causal continuum of our aggregates. He thinks that, nonetheless, we do exist as the collection of our aggregates.
Vasubandhu then presents a series of objections to the theory of the Pudgalavādins, Indian Buddhist schoolmen who claim that even though we do not possess person-properties by ourselves and do not exist as substances apart from our aggregates, we exist without being the same as our aggregates. In his objections to the Pudgalavādins’ theory of persons, Vasubandhu assumes that we exist, and therefore we must be either other than our aggregates as separate substances or the same as them. Hence, since the Pudgalavādins reject the view that we are the same as our aggregates, his objections to their theory are often based on his belief that it commits them to the Tīrthikas’ theory that we are separate substances.
Vasubandhu objects to the Pudgalavādins’ theory of persons on the basis of what he believes to be independent reasoning and on the basis of his belief that it contradicts the teachings of the Buddha. Most of the objections he thinks are based on independent reasoning are included in this selection. It is not clear, however, whether the objections of the first sort employ premises the Pudgalavādins themselves would accept as true. For instance, they would seem to reject not only (1) the all-inclusiveness of the sort of distinction Vasubandhu makes between the two realities in his initial objection to their theory, but also (2) the truth of the principle that Vasubandhu uses in his initial attack on their reply to his basic objection, and (3) the correctness of most of his interpretations of the theses and arguments they present after this initial exchange.
The principle Vasubandhu uses in his initial attack on their reply is that the object of a conception must be the same as its causal basis if the conception is to have a referent. The Pudgalavādins reject this principle by saying that a person is conceived “in reliance on” the aggregates, which are the causal basis of the conception of a person. They claim that a person is conceived in reliance upon the aggregates in the way fire is conceived in reliance upon fuel, as opposed to the way milk is conceived in dependence upon its elements. Their point is that in some cases the object of a conception is not the same as its causal basis.
Vasubandhu reacts strongly to the Pudgalavādins’ theory, since it represents for him a slide into the Tīrthikas’ theory that we are separate substances. The Pudgalavādins are reacting to what they perceive to be his failure to account for our conventional understanding of ourselves as single agents of actions, which they believe must be retained in order to make intelligible the Buddha’s account of the path to enlightenment.1
There is no liberation [from suffering] other than this [liberation, the path to which has been explained], since [the Tīrthikas, who also teach a path to liberation from suffering, fail to recognize that] the mistaken view of a self [causes all suffering. Those who follow their teachings will not be liberated from suffering,] for they do not understand that the conception of a self refers only to a continuum of aggregates;2 they believe that a self is a separate substance; but the mental afflictions[, which cause suffering,] arise from self-grasping [,which cannot be eliminated by those who believe that a self is a separate substance].
It is known that the expression, “self,” refers to a continuum of aggregates and not to anything else because [direct perception and correct inference establish that the phenomena in dependence upon which a person is conceived are the aggregates, and] there is no direct perception or correct inference [that establishes the existence of anything else among these phenomena].3
[If anything else exists among these phenomena, its existence would be established by direct perception or correct inference,] for of all phenomena [that exist] there is direct perception [that establishes their existence], as there is of the six objects and the mental organ unless [direct] perception of them is impeded, or there is correct inference [that establishes their existence], as there is of the five [sense] organs.
The Pudgalavādins4 [,who profess to be followers of the Buddha’s teachings,] assert that a person exists.5 [To determine whether or not their assertion conforms to the Buddha’s teachings,] we must first consider whether in their view a person is substantially real or is real by way of a conception.
If a person is a distinct entity like visible form and other such things, he is substantially real; but if [by analysis] he is [shown to be] a collection [of substances], like milk and other such things, he is real by way of a conception. Consequently, if a person is substantially real, it must be said that he is other than the aggregates in the way each of them is other than the others, since he will possess a different essence (svabhāva)[than is possessed by any of the aggregates. If he is other than the aggregates, he must be either causally conditioned or causally unconditioned. If he is other than the aggregates and is causally conditioned,] his causes should be explained. But if he is [other than the aggregates and is] causally unconditioned, the false theory [of persons] espoused by the Tīrthikas is held and a person does not function [as a person. Therefore, since the Pudgalavādins cannot say that a person is other than the aggregates, they cannot say that he is substantially real]. If he is real by way of a conception, [he is the collection of aggregates, and] this is the theory [of persons found in the Buddha’s sūtras and is] held by us.
[But the Pudgalavādins assert that] a person is not substantially real or real by way of a conception, since he is conceived in reliance upon the aggregates6 which pertain to himself,7 are acquired, and exist in the present.
If we are to understand this obscure statement [of why a person is neither substantially real nor real by way of a conception], its meaning must be disclosed. What is meant by [saying that a person is conceived] “in reliance upon [the aggregates]”? If it means [that a person is conceived] “on the condition that the aggregates have been perceived,” then the conception [of a person] refers only to them, [not to a person that exists apart from the aggregates,] just as when visible forms and other such things [that comprise milk] have been perceived, the conception of milk refers only to them, [not to milk that exists apart from visible forms and other such things]. If [saying that a person is conceived “in reliance upon the aggregates” means that he is conceived] “in dependence upon the aggregates,” then [once again, the conception of a person refers only to them,] because the aggregates themselves will cause him to be conceived. [Therefore,] there is the same difficulty [that the Pudgalavādins must say that a person is his aggregates].
[They reply by saying that] a person is not conceived in this way [in which milk is conceived], but rather in the way [in which] fire is conceived in reliance upon fuel. [They say that] fire is conceived in reliance upon fuel, [and yet] it is not conceived unless fuel is present and cannot be conceived if it either is or is not other than fuel. If fire were other than fuel, fuel [in burning material] would not be hot [,which is absurd,] and if fire were not other than fuel, what is burned could be the same as what burns it[, which is also absurd].
Similarly, [they contend,] a person is not conceived unless the aggregates are present, [and] if he were other than the aggregates, the eternal transcendence theory [that a person is substantially real] would be held, and if he were not other than the aggregates, the nihilism theory [that a person does not exist at all] would be held.8
They must explain, first of all, what fuel and fire are so we shall know how fire is conceived in reliance upon fuel. [They say that] fuel is what is burned and fire is what burns it. [But these are mere conventional definitions.] What is burned and what burns it are the very things we need to have explained [if it is to be known how they are in fact conceived].
It is commonly said that fuel is material9 that is not burning, but can burn, and that fire is burning [material] that burns fuel. A blazing and intensely hot fire, [it is commonly said,] burns or ignites fuel in that it brings about an alteration in its continuum. [But analysis shows that the] fire and fuel are composed of eight [elemental] substances,10 and fire arises in dependence upon fuel in the way curds arise in dependence upon milk and sour [milk] upon sweet [milk]. So we say [that fire is conceived] in reliance upon fuel, even though it is other than fuel by reason of existing at a different time [as a different collection of elements]. And so, if a person arises in the same way in dependence upon the aggregates, he must be other than them. [Moreover, contrary to their view that a person is not impermanent,] he must also be impermanent[, since he arises in dependence upon the aggregates].11
[The Pudgalavādins believe that they avoid these objections because] they assert that fire is the heat present in the above-mentioned burning material12 and that [the] fuel [in reliance upon which fire is conceived] is comprised of the three elements [of earth, air, and water] that conjointly arise with it [in burning material].
[But according to this analysis,] fire must still be other than fuel, since they will have different defining properties. Moreover, the meaning of “in reliance upon” must be explained, [since, according to their analyses of fire and fuel,] how is fire conceived in reliance upon fuel? For [if the analyses are correct, it is true not only that] fuel will not be a cause of fire, [but] also [that] it will not even be a cause of the conception of fire, since fire itself will be the cause of the conception [of fire].
If the meaning of “in reliance upon” is a support as inseparable concomitance,13 then the aggregates must also be said in the same way to be the supports or inseparable concomitants of a person, in which case they clearly must say that the aggregates are other than a person [since the supports and inseparable concomitants of something are other than it]. And [they must also say, contrary to their theory that a person does not exist in dependence upon the existence of the aggregates, that] a person does not [in fact] exist unless the aggregates exist, just as fire does not [in fact] exist unless fuel exists.14
Finally, what does “hot” signify in their earlier assertion that if fire were other than fuel, fuel [in burning material] would not be hot? If it signifies heat, then fuel itself is not hot, since it [is, according to their analysis, what] possesses the essences of the other [three] elements [rather than the essence of the fire whose presence in something is the cause of its heat. There remains the possibility that] what is hot, even if it is other than fire, which is hot according to its essence, can be shown to be hot in the sense that it can be combined with heat. [But] in this case fire being other than fuel is not a problem [for the view that fuel in burning material is hot].
Should they say [in order to avoid the objection that fire is other than fuel] that burning material is as a whole both fire and fuel, they must explain what it can mean in this case to say [that fire is conceived] “in reliance upon” [fuel. For if burning material is as a whole both fire and fuel, fuel will be the fire, and that in reliance upon which fire is conceived will be the fire itself, which the Pudgalavādins deny]. Moreover, since the aggregates themselves would also be the person, it follows that they could not avoid the theory that a person is not other than his aggregates.15
Therefore, they have not shown that a person is conceived in reliance upon the aggregates in the way [in which they believe] that fire is conceived in reliance upon fuel.
Since [the Pudgalavādins assert that a person is inexplicable,] they cannot say that a person is other than the aggregates. [Hence] they cannot say that there are five kinds of objects known to exist, [namely,] past, future, and present [causally conditioned phenomena], causally unconditioned phenomena,16 and the [persons that they call] inexplicable. For they cannot assert that an inexplicable [person] constitutes a fifth kind [of object known to exist, since if a person cannot be said to be other than the aggregates, which are the three kinds of casually conditioned phenomena, he must be the same as them]. Nor [can they assert] that he does not constitute a fifth kind, [since if they assert that a person is not the same as the aggregates, they also cannot say that a person is the three kinds of causally conditioned phenomena or that he is a causally unconditioned phenomenon. Hence, they cannot assert that a person is inexplicable.]
When conceived, is a person conceived after the aggregates are perceived or after a person is perceived? If he is conceived after the aggregates are perceived, the conception of a person refers only to them, since a person is not perceived. But if he is conceived after he himself is perceived, then how can a person be conceived in reliance upon the aggregates, since then the person himself is the basis upon which he is conceived?
[They say that] a person is conceived in reliance upon the aggregates because a person is perceived when the aggregates are present. [But] in that case, since a visible form is perceived when the eye, attentiveness, and light are present, they would have to say that a visible form is conceived in reliance upon them [rather than because of the visible form that is perceived]; and just as a visible form [is other than the eye, attentiveness, and light present when a visible form is perceived], clearly a person would be other [than the aggregates present when a person is perceived].
They must state by which of the six consciousnesses a person is known to exist. They say that a person is known to exist by all six. They explain [this] by saying that if a consciousness is aware of a person in dependence upon a visible form known to exist by means of the eye, it is said that a person is known to exist by means of the eye; but it is not said that a person is or is not the visible form [in dependence upon which the consciousness is aware of a person]. In the same way [they explain how a person is known to exist by each of the other five consciousnesses] up to [and including] the mental consciousness, [saying that] if a consciousness is aware of a person in dependence upon a phenomenon known to exist by means of the mental organ, it is said that a person is known to exist by means of the mental organ; but it is not said that a person either is or is not the phenomenon [in dependence upon which the consciousness is aware of a person].
But the same account can be given of [how] milk and other such things [are known to exist]. If a consciousness is aware of milk in dependence upon a visible form known to exist by means of the eye, it is said that milk is known to exist by means of the eye; but it is not said that milk either is or is not the visible form [in dependence upon which the consciousness is aware of milk]. For the same reason, if a consciousness is aware of milk in dependence upon objects known to exist by means of the nose, the tongue, and the body, it is said that milk is known to exist by means of these organs; but it is not said that milk is or is not [any one of] the objects [in dependence upon which the consciousness is aware of milk].17
[Nor can milk be any one of these objects, for if it were any one of them, it would be each of them, and if it were each of them, then since the objects known to exist by these four consciousnesses are of four different kinds] the absurd consequence follows that the milk would be of four different kinds.
[But if milk is known to exist by means of the eye, the nose, the tongue, and the body, and it neither is nor is not any one of these objects, then it must be all of them as a collection. And if milk is all of them as a collection, it must be all of them as a collection that are conceived as milk.] Therefore, just as [it must be all of] these very objects as a collection [that] are conceived as milk, in the same way, [it must also be all of the objects as a collection that are known to exist by the six consciousnesses that perceive a person that are conceived as a person. And since these very objects are the aggregates,] it is established that the aggregates are conceived as a person. [But if the aggregates are conceived as a person, a person is the aggregates. Therefore, the Pudgalavādins’ account of how a person is known to exist by the six consciousnesses cannot be used to explain how an inexplicable person is known to exist.]
Furthermore, what do they mean when they assert that [a person is known to exist if] a consciousness is aware of a person in dependence upon a visible form known to exist by means of the eye? Is [it meant that a person is known to exist if] a cause of a perception of a person is a visible form or is [it meant that a person is known to exist if] a person [is] perceived when a visible form is perceived?
If [they say that] a cause of a perception of a person is a visible form and [they also say that] a person cannot be said to be other than a visible form, they cannot say [as they do] that a visible form is other than light, the eye, and attentiveness, since these are causes of a perception of a visible form.
[The Pudgalavādins object that] a person cannot merely be the aggregates, since the Buddha would not have said [in explanation of the problem of suffering and its solution], “Bhiksṃus, I will explain to you the burden, the taking up of the burden, the casting off of the burden, and what bears it.” It is not reasonable [they object], that the burden be the same as its bearer, since the two are commonly recognized not to be the same.
But [if this objection is sound, we may infer that] it is also not reasonable that the inexplicable [phenomenon the Pudgalavādins call a person] exists, since it is commonly recognized not to exist. Moreover, [if the burden is not its bearer,] it follows that the taking up of the burden would not be included [by the Buddha, as we both agree it is, under the name “grasping at existence,”] in the aggregates. [For if the burden not be its own bearer, the taking up of the burden would be part of the bearer of the burden rather than part of the burden].
The Bhagavān spoke of the bearer of the burden with the intention that just this much should be understood: [that reference to it is a verbal convention, just as reference to a person is, when it is said, for instance, that] “he is venerable, has a certain name, lives for a while or for a long time, and lives to a certain age.” But it should not be understood to be permanent or inexplicable. Since the aggregates cause harm to themselves, the earlier are called a burden [to the later] and the later the bearer of the burden, since “burden” means “harm.”
[They object that] a person is not the aggregates because [in a sūtra] it is said [by the Buddha, in reference to himself], “One person is born into the world [for the welfare of the many].” [The use of “one person” shows that the Buddha does not mean to refer to his aggregates.]
[But in this passage, the term] “one” is applied figuratively18 to a collection [of aggregates], just as [it is applied in] “one sesame seed,” “one grain of rice,” “one heap,” and “one word.” Moreover, [if they accept this passage as a statement of doctrine that requires no interpretation,] they must[,contrary to their own view] also admit that a person is [a] causally conditioned [phenomenon], since they will have agreed that he is born.
[The Pudgalavādins object that] if a person were merely the aggregates, the Bhagavān would not have said, “At that time and place I was the teacher called Sunetra,” since the aggregates [of the Bhagavān] would be other than those [of Sunetra].
But it cannot be [to himself as] a person [that the Bhagavān refers,] since he would then be committed to the eternal transcendence belief [that a person is a permanent phenomenon]. Therefore, [when the Bhagavān said, “I was the teacher called Sunetra,”] he was referring to a single [causal] continuum [of aggregates in dependence upon which, at one time, Sunetra was conceived, and now, śākyamuni Buddha is conceived]. It is like when we say, “This same burning fire has moved” [from here to there, we are referring to a single causal continuum of a combination of elements in dependence upon which, at different times, fire is conceived].
If [they say that] a person is perceived when a visible form is perceived, a person is perceived by the same perception [by which a visible form is perceived] or by another perception. If a person is perceived by the same perception [by which a visible form is perceived, then since one perception is the same as another, what is perceived by the one is the same in essence as what is perceived by the other], a person is the same in essence as a visible form and only it is to be conceived as that [person]. How, then, could a visible form be distinguished from a person? And if it cannot be distinguished in this way, how can it be asserted that both a visible form and a person [separately] exist, since it is on the strength of a [separate] perception of something that its [separate] existence is asserted? This same argument can be used [for objects perceived by the other five consciousnesses] up to [and including] a phenomenon [perceived by the mental consciousness]. If [a person is perceived] by a perception other than the one by which a visible form is perceived, then since he is perceived at a different time, a person must be other than a visible form, just as yellow is other than blue and one moment is other than another. This same argument can be used [for objects perceived by the other five consciousnesses] up to [and including] a phenomenon [perceived by the mental consciousness].
[They reply that a person can be perceived when a visible form is perceived, and yet the perception of a person and the perception of a visible form cannot be said either to be or not to be other than one another. But] if these perceptions, like [their objects,] a person and a visible form, cannot be said either to be or not to be other than one another, they must contradict their own theory [that a perception is a causally conditioned phenomenon], since [if a perception is inexplicable,] a causally conditioned phenomenon can then also be inexplicable[, which is absurd].
Cousins, L. S. (1994) “Person and Self.” In Proceedings: “Buddhism into The Year 2000.” Bangkok and Los Angeles: The Dammakaya Foundation, pp. 15–31.
Duerlinger, James. (2003) Indian Buddhist Theories of Persons: Vasubandhu’s “Refutation of the Theory of a Self.” London: CurzonRoutledge.
Stcherbatsky, Th. (1970) Central Conception of Buddhism and the Meaning of the Word “Dharma.” Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Williams, Paul. (1981) “On the Abhidharma Ontology.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 9: 227–257.