Scholars have pointed out that the arguments for not-self (anattā, or “non-self”) recurring in the Buddhist texts are meant to refute the “self” (ātman) in the Upani?ads. The Buddha’s denial of the self, however, was not only pointed at Brahmanism, but also confronted various ?rama?ic trends of thought against Brahmanism. This paper investigates the extant three versions of a Buddhist text which records a debate between the Buddha and Saccaka, an adherent of a certain ?rama?ic sect, over the relationship of the self and the five aggregates (khandha). There exist divergences among the three versions in regard to the account of this debate. The account in sutta 35 of the Majjhima Nikāya is generally consistent with that in sūtra 110 of the Saṃyukta ?gama in Chinese translation, whereas sūtra 10 of Chapter 37 of the Ekottarika ?gama in Chinese translation tells a very different story.
Judging from Saccaka’s title, Niga??haputta, and his background as given in the Pali commentary, he was an adherent of Jainism. This paper demonstrates that Saccaka’s view, which was refuted by the Buddha, as stated in the two similar versions has nothing to do with Jainism, but rather it is an “invention” created by distorting Brahmanical thought. This “invention” has led the Pali commentaries and contemporary scholars to interpret the ‘self’ denied by the Buddha as what comes under one’s mastery or control, and to understand the statement “Each of the five aggregates is not self” in the Buddhist texts as denying the idea that each of the five aggregates can be seen as what comes under control. This, however, misses the point. The mainstream thought in India at that time conceived the ‘self’ or the essence of the individual or of the universe as a ‘controller’, and it is this concept that the Buddha exerted all his energy to overturn. Therefore, the account in those two versions of the text apparently has some mistake.
As to the Ekottarika ?gama version of the text, Saccaka’s view as stated therein is very different from what is found in the above two versions. An examination of this version shows that the views rebutted by the Buddha are very similar to those of the ?jīvikas. Since the Buddhist texts frequently confuse the ?jīvikas with the Jains (Niga??ha), it is very likely that Saccaka was actually an adherent of the ?jīvika faith and that this discourse is meant to criticize the ?jīvika doctrines. Since the Ekottarika ?gama version seems to make better sense, this version may be fairly close to the original account, while the other two versions have considerably deviated from the original.
By comparing these three versions of the text, I also attempt to explore some important issues regarding the sectarian development of Buddhism, and to shed some light on the unique values of the Chinese Ekottarika ?gama, which is, in terms of sectarian affiliation, significantly distant from the Pali Majjhima Nikāya and the Chinese Saṃyukta ?gama that belong to two closely related schools.
