The west's careless reading of Buddhism
The notion of self is confusing for Western interpreters of Buddhism. There is, in fact, a track record going back a least a hundred years of Westerners putting a negativistic spin on Buddhism. Much of this spin either owes to a careless misreading of Buddhism or is intended to make Buddhism look bad in contrast with Christianity.
While there is no clear evidence that the Buddha made categorical statements regarding an Atman-theory, by the same token, there is certainly no evidence that self, as transcendent to all determinations, is not assumed in the Buddhas discourses being the implicit centerpiece of his teaching (later this is brought out in Mahayana Buddhism where self becomes synonymous with Buddha-nature). Positing a self and taking a transcendent self for granted are quite different things. The former can lead to unsatisfying metaphysical speculation and debates whereas the latter is more promising; that can be described as the mystical path or the via negativa.
What is fairly consistent in the older canon is the Buddha teaching his followers not to mistake their true self or att for what not their self or anatt. If this sounds simplewell, it is. How Westerners manage to botch it up is by latching on to what is not the self or anatt, then assuming that this, in some way, is a straightforward denial of self. But this is a careless reading of the text.
What is, in fact, being denied is that our self has any connection with the psychophysical body other than an illusory one aggravated by our desire for what is not ours. The psychophysical body is finite and unreal, being made up of attributes or skandhas. Our self is not finite. It is what we are, intrinsically, although it may not seem like it because we are so attached to this troublesome, transient psychophysical burden we have claimed to be ours.
Westerners by rejecting the possibility of a real self or atman are forced to read Buddhism as either denying the self, co! mpletely , or admitting to a provisional self that is no more after death. However, in both cases, the position is still one of annihilationism and cant be passed off as anything else. Holding on to such a position one has identified with contingent existence, itself, blindly seeing their self in what is not self (anattani attnam). This leads to unending rebirth and samsara. Obviously, this is not what the Buddha taught.
