One might think, ‘We accept the validity of the scriptures, and will not be harmed by these logical measures. And the scriptures do state that the aggregates constitute the self:
O mendicants, those ascetics and brahmins who perceive things in terms of ‘I’, are in fact only perceiving the five assimilated aggregates.1
‘And so, this is the case here too.’
That aggregates are self, you base this claim upon
The Teacher’s statement that, ‘The aggregates are self.’
But this refutes a self distinct from aggregates,
As other sutras state that form is not the self. (6.132)
This sutra where it is recognised that, ‘The aggregates are the self,’ is not in fact saying that the aggregates constitute the self. What does it then say? The intent of the Illustrious One was to indicate that there is no self whatsoever separate from the aggregates, in order to refute the scriptures of the misguided using the relative truth, and to clarify what is the unmistaken relative truth. If you ask how one can be certain that this is a refutation of a self that is distinct from the aggregates, the reason is that other sutras refute the idea that form and so forth constitute the self.
Title
Chapter 1: Pramuditā
