<blockquote>
  <p><em>An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena that can be described as that phenomena's self.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>I said this in one of my answers but was scored down by the same Mahayana who believe in these ideas. </p>

<p>An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena <strong>CANNOT</strong> be described as that phenomena's self.</p>

<p>That a rock is 'hard' by nature is not its "self". That Nibbana is "peaceful" is not its "self". Such ideas are crazy. "Self" is "ego" &amp; "possessiveness" ("I-making" &amp; "mine-making"). </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>“Rāhula, the interior earth element is said to be anything hard, solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This
  includes head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews,
  bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs,
  intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, or anything else hard,
  solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This
  is called the interior earth element. The interior earth element and
  the exterior <strong>earth element are just the earth element. This should be
  truly seen with proper understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I
  am not this, this is not my self.’</strong> When you really see with proper
  understanding, you reject the earth element, detaching the mind from
  the earth element.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>MN 62</em></p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-17T02:21:22.367Z
`An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena CANNOT be described as that phenomena's self` But apparently it (the word "self") IS used that way. The Pali word is *sabhāva* which starts with *[sa-](https://dsalsrv04.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/pali_query.py?qs=Sa&searchhws=yes)* defined as "own" -- Wikipedia's [sabhāva](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svabhava) says, `literally means "own-being" or "own-becoming". It is the intrinsic nature, essential nature or essence of living beings`: which, Andrei says, people translate as a something's "self" or "true self".
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-17T09:36:20.987Z
Spare us Chris. Thanks. As though Wikipedia understands dhamma. As though Buddhism teaches about a True Self.
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-17T09:40:46.397Z
No Bodhihammer. MN 62 merely states to not regard the earth element as "mine". Why don't you read the sutta, which states: "earth property are simply earth property".
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-17T11:06:26.390Z
All that is required is required is removing self-grasping. The element of earth can be perceived without self-grasping. What you are posting is irrelevant and mere intellectualism. It shows non-liberation. Its just superstition & philosophy.
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-17T01:49:45.580Z
2018-08-17T02:00:18.617Z
2018-08-17T02:00:18.617Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p><em>1. Do other Mahayana Buddhists apart from the commentator above, also call the intrinsic essence (svabhava) of a chair, as the "self of chairs"?</em></p>

<p>Yes, this is a common expression in Mahayana texts on the topic.</p>

<p><em>2. If Theravada states "sabbe dhamma anatta" and Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma asvabhava", does it mean that anatta = asvabhava, and therefore, atta (self) = svabhava (intrinsic essence)?</em></p>

<p>I think Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma shunyata" - which can be explained as "sabbe dhamma asvabhavata" and "sabbe dhamma pratityasamutpida". From this it also follows that all dharmas are <em>anicca</em> (ephemeral) and <em>dukkha</em> (here, faulty/unreliable).</p>

<p>If we don't nitpick too much about the meaning of the equal sign, I think I can agree with your statements that "anatta = asvabhava" and "atta = svabhava". More on this in a second.</p>

<p><em>3. Depending on your view: if the Theravada atta (self) is different from the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then what really is the difference? OR if the Theravada atta (self) is same as the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then does that make the Mahayana emptiness a redundant concept?</em></p>

<p>I think <em>svabhava</em> is a broader concept than <em>atman</em> (<em>atta</em>). To me, <em>atman</em> is only one case of reification, or one case of attributing <em>svabhava</em> to abstractions and observations.</p>

<p>Therefore, Mahayana's emptiness is not redundant. True -- it is not something entirely new that was absent in Theravada, but in my opinion it gives proper emphasis to something that is kind of implicit and not explained enough in the Pali Canon (even if ever-present "between the lines"). </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-15T17:25:41.097Z
OK. So, you're saying that "anatta ⊂asvabhava" and "atta ⊂svabhava", where the symbol ⊂ in set theory means, "A⊂B, A is a subset of B, but A is not equal to B."
ruben2020
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-15T18:03:37.180Z
That is correct.
Andriy Volkov
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-15T17:18:17.483Z
2018-08-15T17:24:11.973Z
2018-08-15T17:24:11.973Z
Andriy Volkov
<p>With reference to <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/28699/471#comment48335_28699">this comment</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some
  phenomena that can be described as that phenomena's self. The self of
  chair would be that intrinsic nature, essence or unique characteristic
  or set of characteristics that imbue chairness on a chair. Western
  philosophers might describe it as a platonic ideal.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In Theravada Buddhism, "sabbe dhamma anatta", means all phenomena is not self. This can also be rephrased as there is no self in all phenomena, with the understanding of "self" as a permanent and eternal core or soul or self at the center of beings and also non-beings. A chair, a tree, a cat, the mind, empty space and Nibbana all do not have a self, according to Theravada. All things except Nibbana, are subject to change, arising and passing - these are known as "sankhara", or conditioned and/or compounded things. The term "dhamma" refers to phenomena, which includes Nibbana and also all sankharas. Basically everything falls under "dhamma". The emptiness of Theravada refers to the notion that all phenomena is empty of a self. "Sabbe dhamma anatta" is accepted by Mahayana Buddhism too.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, in Mahayana Buddhism, specifically in Madhyamaka, all phenomena is empty of intrinsic essence. Emptiness itself is also empty of intrinsic essence - sometimes called the emptiness of emptiness. intrinsic essence is called "svabhava". I can say that in Madhyamaka, there is an equivalent "sabbe dhamma asvabhava" of sorts.</p>

<p>Generally, the difference between the two is understood as "Mahayana says everything is not ultimately real", but on the other hand, "Theravada says everything is not-self, but are real (even if not constant and not permanent)".</p>

<p>The commentator above now introduced a new set of terminology saying that Theravada's self or atta refers to the "self of persons", while the Mahayana svabhava (or intrinsic essence) of a chair is a "self of chairs".</p>

<p>So my questions would be:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Do other Mahayana Buddhists apart from the commentator above, also call the intrinsic essence (svabhava) of a chair, as the "self of chairs"?</p></li>
<li><p>If Theravada states "sabbe dhamma anatta" and Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma asvabhava", does it mean that anatta = asvabhava, and therefore, atta (self) = svabhava (intrinsic essence)?</p></li>
<li><p>Depending on your view: if the Theravada atta (self) is different from the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then what really is the difference? <strong>OR</strong> if the Theravada atta (self) is same as the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then does that make the Mahayana emptiness a redundant concept?</p></li>
</ol>

<theravada><mahayana><anatman><sunyata>
Difference between Theravada's self and Mahayana's intrinsic essence
# Difference between Theravada's self and Mahayana's intrinsic essence

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-08-15)

With reference to [this comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/28699/471#comment48335_28699):

> An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some
> phenomena that can be described as that phenomena's self. The self of
> chair would be that intrinsic nature, essence or unique characteristic
> or set of characteristics that imbue chairness on a chair. Western
> philosophers might describe it as a platonic ideal.

In Theravada Buddhism, "sabbe dhamma anatta", means all phenomena is not self. This can also be rephrased as there is no self in all phenomena, with the understanding of "self" as a permanent and eternal core or soul or self at the center of beings and also non-beings. A chair, a tree, a cat, the mind, empty space and Nibbana all do not have a self, according to Theravada. All things except Nibbana, are subject to change, arising and passing - these are known as "sankhara", or conditioned and/or compounded things. The term "dhamma" refers to phenomena, which includes Nibbana and also all sankharas. Basically everything falls under "dhamma". The emptiness of Theravada refers to the notion that all phenomena is empty of a self. "Sabbe dhamma anatta" is accepted by Mahayana Buddhism too.

Meanwhile, in Mahayana Buddhism, specifically in Madhyamaka, all phenomena is empty of intrinsic essence. Emptiness itself is also empty of intrinsic essence - sometimes called the emptiness of emptiness. intrinsic essence is called "svabhava". I can say that in Madhyamaka, there is an equivalent "sabbe dhamma asvabhava" of sorts.

Generally, the difference between the two is understood as "Mahayana says everything is not ultimately real", but on the other hand, "Theravada says everything is not-self, but are real (even if not constant and not permanent)".

The commentator above now introduced a new set of terminology saying that Theravada's self or atta refers to the "self of persons", while the Mahayana svabhava (or intrinsic essence) of a chair is a "self of chairs".

So my questions would be:

1. Do other Mahayana Buddhists apart from the commentator above, also call the intrinsic essence (svabhava) of a chair, as the "self of chairs"?
2. If Theravada states "sabbe dhamma anatta" and Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma asvabhava", does it mean that anatta = asvabhava, and therefore, atta (self) = svabhava (intrinsic essence)?
3. Depending on your view: if the Theravada atta (self) is different from the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then what really is the difference? **OR** if the Theravada atta (self) is same as the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then does that make the Mahayana emptiness a redundant concept?

**Tags:** theravada, mahayana, anatman, sunyata


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-08-15. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

*1. Do other Mahayana Buddhists apart from the commentator above, also call the intrinsic essence (svabhava) of a chair, as the "self of chairs"?*

Yes, this is a common expression in Mahayana texts on the topic.

*2. If Theravada states "sabbe dhamma anatta" and Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma asvabhava", does it mean that anatta = asvabhava, and therefore, atta (self) = svabhava (intrinsic essence)?*

I think Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma shunyata" - which can be explained as "sabbe dhamma asvabhavata" and "sabbe dhamma pratityasamutpida". From this it also follows that all dharmas are *anicca* (ephemeral) and *dukkha* (here, faulty/unreliable).

If we don't nitpick too much about the meaning of the equal sign, I think I can agree with your statements that "anatta = asvabhava" and "atta = svabhava". More on this in a second.

*3. Depending on your view: if the Theravada atta (self) is different from the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then what really is the difference? OR if the Theravada atta (self) is same as the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then does that make the Mahayana emptiness a redundant concept?*

I think *svabhava* is a broader concept than *atman* (*atta*). To me, *atman* is only one case of reification, or one case of attributing *svabhava* to abstractions and observations.

Therefore, Mahayana's emptiness is not redundant. True -- it is not something entirely new that was absent in Theravada, but in my opinion it gives proper emphasis to something that is kind of implicit and not explained enough in the Pali Canon (even if ever-present "between the lines").

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: OK. So, you're saying that "anatta ⊂asvabhava" and "atta ⊂svabhava", where the symbol ⊂ in set theory means, "A⊂B, A is a subset of B, but A is not equal to B."  
> **username_3**: That is correct.  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-08-17. Score: -1

> *An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena that can be described as that phenomena's self.*

I said this in one of my answers but was scored down by the same Mahayana who believe in these ideas.

An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena **CANNOT** be described as that phenomena's self.

That a rock is 'hard' by nature is not its "self". That Nibbana is "peaceful" is not its "self". Such ideas are crazy. "Self" is "ego" & "possessiveness" ("I-making" & "mine-making").

> *“Rāhula, the interior earth element is said to be anything hard, solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This
> includes head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews,
> bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs,
> intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, or anything else hard,
> solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This
> is called the interior earth element. The interior earth element and
> the exterior **earth element are just the earth element. This should be
> truly seen with proper understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I
> am not this, this is not my self.’** When you really see with proper
> understanding, you reject the earth element, detaching the mind from
> the earth element.*
>
> *MN 62*

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: `An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena CANNOT be described as that phenomena's self` But apparently it (the word "self") IS used that way. The Pali word is *sabhāva* which starts with *[sa-](https://dsalsrv04.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/pali_query.py?qs=Sa&searchhws=yes)* defined as "own" -- Wikipedia's [sabhāva](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svabhava) says, `literally means "own-being" or "own-becoming". It is the intrinsic nature, essential nature or essence of living beings`: which, Andrei says, people translate as a something's "self" or "true self".  
> **username_1**: Spare us Chris. Thanks. As though Wikipedia understands dhamma. As though Buddhism teaches about a True Self.  
> **username_1**: No Bodhihammer. MN 62 merely states to not regard the earth element as "mine". Why don't you read the sutta, which states: "earth property are simply earth property".  
> **username_1**: All that is required is required is removing self-grasping. The element of earth can be perceived without self-grasping. What you are posting is irrelevant and mere intellectualism. It shows non-liberation. Its just superstition & philosophy.  

---

