An unusual conversation on doctrine of not-self

Jan 5, 2010, 12.00am IST
KAILASH VAJPEYI.

For those who identify themselves with their material possessions, physical beauty or faith, the following story from the book titled ‘The Distinguishing Characteristics of Ethical Qualities’ could be instructive.
An enlightened Buddhist monk, Nagasena, was head of a monastery near the border of King Milinda’s kingdom. One morning the king went to see Nagasena. He began the conversation with a question: “How your Reverence known and what is is your name?” The monk replied: “I am Nagasena and it is by that name that all other monks address me. Names such as Nagasena or Virasena are only terms of reference, for there is no permanent individuality involved in the matter.”
King Milinda invited other monks to witness and said: “Nagasena says there is no permanent individuality implied in the name.” And turning to Nagasena, he said: “If there is no permanent individuality involved in the matter, who gives you robes and food, who is it who lives a life of righteousness? Who devotes himself to meditation? Now what is that Nagasena? Do you mean to say that hair is Nagasena?”
The monk replied: “I don’t say that, great king.” “Or hair in the body perhaps?” “Certainly not.”
“Or is it the nails, the teeth, skin, flesh, nerves, bones, marrow, the kidneys, the heart, the liver, the abdomen, the spleen, the lungs, the larger intestines, the lower intestines, the stomach, the bile ... or the brain or any or all of these that is Nagasena?”
In reference to each of these Nagasena answered ‘No’.
King Milinda again asked: “Then all these skandhas -- vital elements -- combined are Nagasena?” “No Sir,” said Nagasena.


“But is there any thing outside the five skandhas that is Nagasena?” And still Nagasena answered: “No, great king.” “Then,” exclaimed the king, “There is no Nagasena. Who then is the Nagasena I see before me?”


Nagasena said to King Milinda: “O King, you came here by chariot. Sir explain to me what that is. Is it the pole that is the chariot? Or is it the axle, the wheels, the framework, the yoke or the spokes of the wheels that are the chariot?” Nagasena continued in this vein and the kind ansered in the negative to all his questions. Nagasena continued: “Then is it all these parts of it that are the chariot?” The king shook his head.


Nagasena asked him if anything outside of the chariot could be called the chariot. Again, the answer was in the negative. “Then,” declared Nagasena to the king: “If I may say so, I can discover no chariot. What you say is a chariot is a mere empty sound ... What then, O King, is the chariot you say you came in? It is a falsehood. Your Majesty has spoken an untruth.


There is no such thing as a chariot. You are a king; a mighty monarch.. of whom then are you afraid that you spoke an untruth!”
Nagasena then called upon the brethren to witness, saying: “Milinda, the king, has said that he came by chariot.” When he had thus spoken, all the monks shouted their applause and said to the king: “Now your majesty, try to get out of that if you can! King Milinda said to Nagasena: “I have spoken no untruth. It is an account of its having all these things – the pole and the axle and so on -- that it comes under the generally understood term, the designation in common use of chariot.”


“Very good!” said Nagasena. “Your majesty has grasped the meaning of chariot. So is the case with Nagasena. There is no Nagasena.”