The Venerable Nagasena stayed at the Sankheyya hermitage together with 80,000 monks. King Milinda, accompanied by a retinue of 500 Greeks, went up to where he was, gave him a friendly and courteous greeting, and sat on one side. Nagasena returned his greetings, and his courtesy pleased the king’s heart.
The Doctrine of Not-Self
2a. The Chariot
And King Milinda asked him: “How is your Reverence known, and what is your name, Sir?”
Nagasena: “As Nagasena I am known, O great king, and as Nagasena do my fellow religious habitually address me. But although parents give such names as Nagasena … nevertheless this word ‘Nagasena’ is just a denomination, a designation, a conceptual term, a current appellation, a mere name. For no real person can here be apprehended.”
Milinda: (addressing the assembly) “Now listen, you 500 Greeks and 80,000 monks, this Nagasena tells me that he is not a real person. How can I be expected to agree with that?” (Turns to Nagasena) “If, most reverend Nagasena, no person can be apprehended in reality, who, then, I ask you, gives you what you require by way of robes, food, lodging, and medicines? What is it that consumes them? Who is it that guards morality, [and] practices meditation? Who is it that kills living beings, takes what is not given, commits sexual misconduct, tells lies, drinks intoxicants? Who is it that commits the Five Deadly Sins? For, if there were no person, there could be no merit or demerit; no doer of meritorious or demeritorious deeds, and no agent behind them; … and no reward or punishment for them. If someone should kill you, O Venerable Nagasena, he would not commit any murder…. What then is this ‘Nagasena’? Are perhaps the hairs of the head ‘Nagasena’?”
Nagasena: “No, great king!”
Milinda: “Or perhaps the hairs of the body?”
Nagasena: “No, great king!”
Milinda: “Or perhaps the nails, teeth, skin, muscles, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, serous membranes, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, stomach, excrement, the bile, phlegm, pus, blood, grease, fat, tears, sweat, spittle, snot, fluid of the joints, urine, or the brain in the skull – are they this ‘Nagasena’?”
Nagasena: “No, great king!”
Milinda: “Or is form this ‘Nagasena,’ or feeling, or perceptions, or impulses, or consciousness?”
Nagasena: “No, great king!”
Milinda: “Then is it the combination of form, feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness?”
Nagasena: “No, great king!”
Milinda: “Then is it outside the combination of form, feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness?”
Nagasena: “No, great king!”
Milinda: “Then, ask as I may, I can discover no Nagasena at all. Just a mere sound is this ‘Nagasena,’ but who is the real Nagasena? Your Reverence has told a lie, has spoken a falsehood! There really is no Nagasena!”
Nagasena: “As a king you have been brought up in great refinement and you avoid roughness of any kind. If you would walk at midday on this hot, burning, and sandy ground, then your feet would have to tread on the rough and gritty gravel and pebbles, and they would hurt you, your body would get tired, your mind impaired, and your awareness of your body would be associated with pain. How, then did you come: on foot, or on a mount?”
Milinda: “I did not come, Sir, on foot, but on a chariot.”
Nagasena: “If you have come on a chariot, then please explain to me what a chariot is. Is the pole the chariot?”
Milinda: “No, reverend Sir!”
Nagasena: “Is then the axle the chariot?”
Milinda: “No, reverend Sir!”
Nagasena: “Is it then the wheels, or the framework, or the flag-staff, or the yoke, or the reins, or the goadstick?”
Milinda: “No, reverend Sir!”
Nagasena: “Then is it the combination of pole, axle, wheels, framework, flag-staff, yoke, reins, and goad?”
Milinda: “No, reverend Sir!”
Nagasena: “Then is this ‘chariot’ outside the combination of pole, axle, wheels, framework, flag-staff, yoke, reins, and goad?”
Milinda: “No, reverend Sir!”
Nagasena: “Then, ask as I may, I can discover no chariot at all. Just a mere sound is this ‘chariot’. But what is the real chariot? Your Majesty has told a lie, has spoken a falsehood! There really is no chariot! Your Majesty is the greatest king in the whole of India. Of whom then are you afraid, that you do not speak the truth?”
(To Assembly) “Now listen, you 500 Greeks, and 80,000 monks, this king Milinda tells me he has come in a chariot. But when asked to explain to me what a chariot is, he cannot establish its existence. How can one possibly approve of that?”
The five hundred Greeks thereupon applauded the Venerable Nagasena and said to King Milinda: “Now let your Majesty get out of this if you can!”
Milinda: “I have not, Nagasena, spoken a falsehood. For it is in dependence on the pole, the axle, the wheels, the framework, the flag-staff, etc., that there takes place this denomination ‘chariot,’ this designation, this conceptual term, a current appellation, and a mere name.”
Nagasena: “Your Majesty has spoken well about the chariot. It is just so with me. In dependence on the thirty-two parts of the body and the five Skandhas there takes place this denomination ‘Nagasena,’ this designation, this conceptual term, a current appellation, and a mere name. In ultimate reality, however, this person cannot be apprehended.”
Milinda: “It is wonderful, Nagasena, it is astonishing, Nagasena! Most brilliantly have these questions been answered! Were the Buddha himself here, he would approve what you have said. Well spoken, Nagasena, well spoken!”
2b. Personal Identity and Rebirth
Milinda: “When someone is reborn, Venerable Nagasena, is he the same as the one who just died, or is he another?”
Nagasena: “He is neither the same nor another.”
Milinda: “Give me an illustration!”
Nagasena: “What do you think, great king: when you were a tiny infant, newly born and quite soft, were you then the same as the one who is now grown up?”
Milinda: “No, that infant was one; I, now grown up, am another.”
Nagasena: “If that is so, great king, you have had no mother, no father, no teaching, and no schooling! Do we then take it that there is one mother for the embryo in the first stage, another for the second stage, another for the third, another for the fourth, another for the baby, another for the grown-up man? Is the schoolboy one person, and the one who has finished school another? Does one commit a crime, but the hands and feet of another are cut off?”
Milinda: “Certainly not! But what would you say, Reverend Sir, to all that?”
Nagasena: “I was neither the tiny infant, newly born and quite soft, nor am I now the grown-up man; but these comprise one unit depending on this very body.”
Milinda: “Give me a simile!”
Nagasena: “If a man were to light a lamp, could it give light throughout the whole night?”
Milinda: “Yes, it could.”
Nagasena: “Is not the flame which burns in the first watch of the night the same as the one which burns in the second?”
Milinda: “It is not the same.”
Nagasena: “Or is the flame that burns in the second watch the same as the one which burns in the last one?”
Milinda: “It is not the same.”
Nagasena: “Even so must we understand the collocation of a series of successive dharmas. At rebirth one dharma arises, while another stops; but the two processes take place almost simultaneously (i.e., they are continuous). Therefore the first act of consciousness in the new existence is neither the same as the last act of consciousness in the previous existence, nor is it another.”
Milinda: “Give me another simile!”
Nagasena: “Milk, once the milking is done, turns after some time into curds; from curds it turns into fresh butter, and from fresh butter into ghee. Would it now be correct to say that the milk is the same thing as the curds, or the fresh butter, or the ghee?”
Milinda: “No, it would not. But they have been produced because of it.”
Nagasena: “Just so must be understood the collocation of a series of successive dharmas.”
NOTE: The use of “Dharma” here is meaningful. “Dharma” often means something like “duty”, the right thing to do, or the law. But it is more: the word comes from Sanskrit for “to hold together” or “to bear, support, or sustain”. Dharma is the universal cosmic law that holds things together. Dharma is how things are held together; there is no right or wrong way for things to be, since dharma is lawful and controls change, and causes things to unfold the way the do. One dharma is the law of karma. Another is the unity of all sentient beings.
The Buddhist scripture "The Questions of King Milinda" contains interesting and very modern arguments about personal identity through time. In effect, Buddhism rejects the key element in folk psychology: the idea of a self (a unified personal identity that is continuous through time).
King Milinda and Nagasena (the Buddhist sage) discuss ordinary problems of personal identity. Nagasena says: "As Nagasena I am known, great King ... But ... this word 'Nagasena' is just a denomination, a designation, a conceptual term, a current appellation, a mere name. For no real person can here be apprehended."
At first Milinda is astonished. Milinda thinks persons obviously exist: "This Nagasena tells me that he is not a real person! How can I be expected to agree with that!" But Milinda gradually realizes that "Nagasena" (the word) does not stand for anything he can point to: "Nagasena" does not designate the hairs on Nagasena's head, nor the hairs of the body, nor the "nails, teeth, skin, muscles, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, ..." etc. In other words, the term "Nagasena" has no obvious denotation. Milinda notes that the term "Nagasena" also does not stand for Nagasena's form, or feeling or perceptions, impulses, or consciousness, nor any combination thereof. On the other hand, "Nagasena" does not stand for anything other than ("outside the combination") Nagasena's form, feelings, etc. Milinda concludes that "Nagasena" doesn't stand for anything, and this is puzzling.
Nagasena answers with one of several arguments by analogy. The analogy is of the chariot. Nagasena points out that we can't say exactly what a chariot is, either; it's not the pole or the axle or the wheels, or the flag-staff, yoke, reins, etc. But that doesn't mean there are no chariots. Milinda realizes that "it is in dependence on the pole, the axle, the wheels, the framework, the flag-staff, etc., that there takes place this denomination 'chariot' ..." Nagasena concludes: "It is just so with me. In dependence on [the parts] there takes place this denomination 'Nagasena.' ... In ultimate reality, however, this person cannot be apprehended."
The discussion continues. If we can't say what a person is, then how do we know a person is the same person through time? Nagasena's answer is basically that the question is badly formed, since you can give equally good reductio ad absurdum arguments that we are the same through time and that we are not the same.
WHY YOU'RE THE SAME
To prove: You are the same person.
Suppose you are different, in the sense that you now are not the same person as before.
Then you'd have no past -- no mother, no father. You do have a past, however, so it is absurd to suppose you are different.
To prove: You are the same person.
Suppose you are a different person in the sense that you are completely different at every moment.
Then you'd have many mothers, fathers, etc. This is absurd, QED.
WHY YOU'RE NOT THE SAME
To prove: You are a different person.
Suppose you are the same person. Then you'd still be a child, a baby, etc., which is absurd, QED.
THEREFORE YOU ARE NEITHER THE SAME NOR DIFFERENT.
If you can't say what the person is to begin with, and furthermore, you can't say whether a person is the same throughout a single life, then how can you say the same person is reincarnated in another body? What could reincarnation possibly mean?
Milinda asks: "When someone is reborn, is he the same or different?" Nagasena answers, "Neither." What's wrong here is our initial understanding of what it means to be anything in a world governed by dharma. The truth, says Nagasena, is that I'm not the infant or the grown-up but instead both comprise "one unit depending on ["in dependence on"] this very body." The relation of dependency is the key (just as in the chariot analogy).
Nagasena explains the dependency relation using two other similes:
1. The lamp and the flame. The flame is never the same flame from moment to moment, though the lamp remains the same. Consciousness is the flame. The lamp is cosmic dharma. "Dharma" is from the Sanskrit word for "hold," "bear," support," or "sustain." Dharma is the law that holds the world together. One principle of dharma is the law of karma: the world is held together by the law of dependent origination (things come to be depending on how things were, and there is no difference between causal and moral dependence). Another principle of dharma is the unity of all sentient beings.
2. Milk / curds / butter / ghee. Milk becomes curds, which become butter, which becomes ghee. Milk is not the same as curds, butter, or ghee, but it's also not different. Those things are because of it, according to the laws of the universe. Something persists, in the sense that later things would not be as they are if earlier things had been different. It's misleading to say any nameable thing persists through all the changes, but nameable things in the past do really continue to influence things in the future.
Thus whatever constitutes "me" is not something I can name or point to, but what I am continues to affect what I become from one incarnation to the next. What I am now continues in the sense that it continues to affect the unfolding of the universe according to dharma.
BUT WHAT IS CONTINUOUS?
Milinda asks, "Is there any being that passes from one body to the next?"
Nagasena answers this without paradox: "No!" We just established that there is the universe and it is held together by the dharmas, which govern all change (dependent origination) of things within the universe. That's all there is. Change is the constant; "things" are not. So the question is not well-formed.
You are "you" only because you are still attached to things, and not "pure." You think of yourself (you are conscious of yourself) as someone who is separate (has the illusion of real difference and independence from the rest of the universe). You as this fictional separate being have desires: you think you want things or states of affairs to be different from the way they are. This constitutes being attached. As long as you remain attached, you remain discontented, under the illusion of separateness, and you remain part of the circle of change (samsara). But when we say "you" remain attached and continue through the cycle of samsara, we don't mean that there's some personal soul with particular traits that "goes" from one body to another. It just means that what comes later is causally/morally connected to earlier stuff according to the laws of karma.
WHY SHOULD I ABANDON ATTACHMENT, THEN, if I'm not going to be the same person who'll pay for it in my future incarnation?
That's not the point. If you're still attached, you're paying right now. Your craving now IS your suffering. Give it up and you have Nirvana now. The trick is to stop wishing you were off the wheel, stop wishing, period. You must realize that your true being is nothing, and has no desires at all.
There's really no you, and if there's no you, there are no beliefs or desires for you to have, since according to folk psychology, beliefs and desires have metaphysically subjective being (like pains, they exist only as experienced).
The folk psychology picture is profoundly misleading and believing it will make you miserable.
1. The king said: 'Have you, Nâgasena, seen the Buddha?'
'No, Sire.'
'Then have your teachers seen the Buddha?'
'No, Sire.'
'Then, venerable Nâgasena, there is no Buddha 1!'
'But, great king, have you seen the river Ûhâ in the Himâlaya mountains?'
'No, Sir.'
'Or has your father seen it?'
'No, Sir.'
'Then, your Majesty, is there therefore no such river?'
'It is there. Though neither I nor my father has seen it, it is nevertheless there.'
'Just so, great king, though neither I nor my teachers have seen the Blessed One, nevertheless there was such a person.'
'Very good, Nâgasena!'
____________________
2. The king said: 'Is the Buddha, Nâgasena, pre-eminent?'
'Yes, he is incomparable.'
'But how do you know of one you have never seen that he is pre-eminent.'
'Now what do you think, O king? They who have never seen the ocean would they know concerning
it: "Deep, unmeasurable, unfathomable is the mighty ocean. Into it do the five great rivers flow--the Ganges, the Jumna, the Akiravatî, the Sarabhû, and the Mahî--and yet is there in it no appearance of being more empty or more full!"?'
'Yes, they would know that.'
'Just so, great king, when I think of the mighty disciples who have passed away then do I know that the Buddha is incomparable.' [71]
'Very good, Nâgasena!'
____________________
3. The king said: 'Is it possible, Nâgasena, for others to know how incomparable the Buddha is?'
'Yes, they may know it.'
'But how can they?'
'Long, long ago, O king, there was a master of writing, by name Tissa the Elder, and many are the years gone by since he has died. How can people know of him?'
'By his writing, Sir.'
'Just so, great king, whosoever sees what the Truth 1 is, he sees what the Blessed One was, for the Truth was preached by the Blessed One.'
'Very good, Nâgasena!'
____________________
4. The king said: 'Have you, Nâgasena, seen what the Truth is?'
'Have not we disciples, O king, to conduct ourselves our lives long as under the eye of the Buddha, and under his command 2?'
'Very good, Nâgasena!'
5. The king said: 'Where there is no transmigration, Nâgasena, can there be rebirth?'
'Yes, there can.'
'But how can that be? Give me an illustration.'
'Suppose a man, O king, were to light a lamp from another lamp, can it be said that the one transmigrates from, or to, the other?'
'Certainly not.'
'Just so, great king, is rebirth without transmigration.'
'Give me a further illustration.'
'Do you recollect, great king, having learnt, when you were a boy, some verse or other from your teacher?'
'Yes, I recollect that.'
'Well then, did that verse transmigrate from your teacher?'
'Certainly not.'
'Just so, great king, is rebirth without transmigration.'
'Very good, Nâgasena!'
____________________
6. The king said: 'Is there such a thing, Nâgasena, as the soul 1?'
'In the highest sense, O king, there is no such thing 2.'
'Very good, Nâgasena!'
____________________
7. [72] The king said: 'Is there any being, Nâgasena, who transmigrates from this body to another?'
'No, there is not.'
'But if so, would it not get free from its evil deeds.'
'Yes, if it were not reborn; but if it were, no 1.'
'Give me an illustration.'
'Suppose, O king, a man were to steal another man's mangoes, would the thief deserve punishment?'
'Yes.'
'But he would not have stolen the mangoes the other set in the ground. Why would he deserve punishment?'
'Because those he stole were the result of those that were planted.'
'Just so, great king, this name-and-form commits deeds, either pure or impure, and by that Karma another name-and-form. is reborn. And therefore is it not set free from its evil deeds?'
'Very good, Nâgasena!'
____________________
8. The king said: 'When deeds are committed, Nâgasena, by one name-and-form, what becomes of those deeds?'
'The deeds would follow it, O king, like a shadow that never leaves it 2.'
'Can any one point out those deeds, saying: "Here are those deeds, or there"?'
'No.'
'Give me an illustration.'
'Now what do you think, O king? Can any one point out the fruits which a tree has not yet produced, saying: "Here they are, or there"?'
'Certainly not, Sir.'
'Just so, great king, so long as the continuity of life is not cut off, it is impossible to point out the deeds that are done.'
'Very good, Nâgasena!'
____________________
9. [73] The king said: 'Does he, Nâgasena, who is about to be reborn know that he will be born?'
'Yes, he knows it, O king.'
'Give me an illustration.'
'Suppose a farmer, O king, a householder, were to put seed in the ground, and it were to rain well, would he know that a crop would be produced.'
'Yes, he would know that.'
'Just so, great king, does he who is about to be reborn know 1 that he will be born.'
'Very good, Nâgasena 2!'
____________________
10. The king said: 'Is there such a person as the Buddha, Nâgasena?'
'Yes.'
'Can he then, Nâgasena, be pointed out as being here or there?'
'The Blessed One, O king, has passed away by that kind of passing away in which nothing remains which could tend to the formation of another
individual 1. It is not possible to point out the Blessed One as being here or there.'
'Give me an illustration.'
'Now what do you think, O king? When there is a great body of fire blazing, is it possible to point out any one flame that has gone out, that it is here or there?'
'No, Sir. That flame has ceased, it has vanished.'
'Just so, great king, has the Blessed One passed away by that kind of passing away in which no root remains for the formation of another individual. The Blessed One has come to an end, and it cannot be pointed out of him, that he is here or there. But in the body of his doctrine he can, O king, be pointed out. For the doctrine 2 was preached by the Blessed One?'
'Very good, Nâgasena!'