Whether the Buddha was a revolutionary or a reformer?
This question cannot be answered definitively. It needs to be analyzed section by section.
A revolutionary is someone who completely overturns an old system, old values, class positions, established power structures, and dominant religious-social systems to establish something entirely new. A reformer, on the other hand, maintains the foundations of the old system while making changes to methodologies, social relationships, and philosophical perspectives to make them more open, free, and progressive.
Using these definitions, it's difficult to categorically label the Buddha as either purely revolutionary or purely reformist. The Buddha was both a bearer of new ideas and someone who understood the value of existing traditions. He recognized both the merits of the old systems and saw what needed reform.
From a philosophical perspective, the Buddha could be considered revolutionary. However, "revolutionary" here means he provided critical analysis of all existing viewpoints rather than total rejection. During Buddha's time, there were various concepts of atta (self). There were different interpretations of what constituted the self. The self was considered permanent, stable, and the owner/controller/experiencer of the five aggregates.
The Buddha rejected all these definitions. When analyzing "everything," it can be reduced to the Five Aggregates, mind-and-matter, 12 sense bases, 18 elements, etc. In human experience, we only find these phenomena. When examining these phenomena, we find that they are all interdependent, conditioned, and constantly changing and decaying - processes that cannot be prevented. Therefore, the Buddha concluded these phenomena are "not-self" (anatta).
A revolutionary is someone who completely overturns an old system, old values, class positions, established power structures, and dominant religious-social systems to establish something entirely new. A reformer, on the other hand, maintains the foundations of the old system while making changes to methodologies, social relationships, and philosophical perspectives to make them more open, free, and progressive.
Using these definitions, it's difficult to categorically label the Buddha as either purely revolutionary or purely reformist. The Buddha was both a bearer of new ideas and someone who understood the value of existing traditions. He recognized both the merits of the old systems and saw what needed reform.
From a philosophical perspective, the Buddha could be considered revolutionary. However, "revolutionary" here means he provided critical analysis of all existing viewpoints rather than total rejection. During Buddha's time, there were various concepts of atta (self). There were different interpretations of what constituted the self. The self was considered permanent, stable, and the owner/controller/experiencer of the five aggregates.
The Buddha rejected all these definitions. When analyzing "everything," it can be reduced to the Five Aggregates, mind-and-matter, 12 sense bases, 18 elements, etc. In human experience, we only find these phenomena. When examining these phenomena, we find that they are all interdependent, conditioned, and constantly changing and decaying - processes that cannot be prevented. Therefore, the Buddha concluded these phenomena are "not-self" (anatta).
On the Buddha's rejection of extreme views and teaching of Dependent Origination:
"Dvayaṃ nissito kho ayaṃ Kaccāna loko yebhuyyena atthitañceva natthitañca... 'Sabbam atthi'ti kho Kaccāna ayam eko anto, 'Sabbaṃ natthī'ti ayaṃ dutiyo anto. Ete te Kaccāna ubho ante anupagamma majjhena Tathāgato dhammaṃ deseti." (SN 12.15 Kaccānagotta Sutta)
The Buddha wasn't interested in the question of whether self exists or not. If there were a self, its characteristics would include permanence, stability, essence, and self-sovereignty. In the aggregates, sense bases, and elements, we don't find these characteristics of self - we only find the characteristic of non-self (anatta). Therefore, the Buddha confirmed these phenomena are not-self.
"Dvayaṃ nissito kho ayaṃ Kaccāna loko yebhuyyena atthitañceva natthitañca... 'Sabbam atthi'ti kho Kaccāna ayam eko anto, 'Sabbaṃ natthī'ti ayaṃ dutiyo anto. Ete te Kaccāna ubho ante anupagamma majjhena Tathāgato dhammaṃ deseti." (SN 12.15 Kaccānagotta Sutta)
The Buddha wasn't interested in the question of whether self exists or not. If there were a self, its characteristics would include permanence, stability, essence, and self-sovereignty. In the aggregates, sense bases, and elements, we don't find these characteristics of self - we only find the characteristic of non-self (anatta). Therefore, the Buddha confirmed these phenomena are not-self.
The Hindu Upanishads speak of the existence of atta (self). The Buddha didn't directly deny or confirm its existence. Instead, he asked for evidence - "Is there anyone who has seen or known it?" In one sutta, when asked about this, he mocked those who claimed self-existence by comparing them to a line of blind men, noting that none could trace it back even seven generations.
Therefore, the existence or non-existence of self isn't a definitive matter. The Buddha often stated he preferred not to discuss or answer this question. Humans tend to imagine self exists in some form. The Buddha explained this as twenty forms of personality-belief (sakkāya-diṭṭhi). For each of the five aggregates, people hold four wrong views:
1. The aggregate belongs to self
2. The aggregate is self
3. Self exists within the aggregate
4. The aggregate exists within self
When multiplied by the five aggregates, this creates twenty forms of wrong view about self. The Buddha rejected all these as unfounded doctrines.
Therefore, the existence or non-existence of self isn't a definitive matter. The Buddha often stated he preferred not to discuss or answer this question. Humans tend to imagine self exists in some form. The Buddha explained this as twenty forms of personality-belief (sakkāya-diṭṭhi). For each of the five aggregates, people hold four wrong views:
1. The aggregate belongs to self
2. The aggregate is self
3. Self exists within the aggregate
4. The aggregate exists within self
When multiplied by the five aggregates, this creates twenty forms of wrong view about self. The Buddha rejected all these as unfounded doctrines.
On the twenty forms of personality belief (sakkāya-diṭṭhi):
"Rūpaṃ attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā rūpaṃ, rūpasmiṃ vā attānaṃ..." (MN 44 Cūḷavedalla Sutta)
So when asked whether the Buddha's teaching of anatta means "there is no self" or "it is not-self," the primary meaning is "it is not-self." The aggregates, sense bases, and elements lack the characteristics of self and cannot be owned. Because they are not-self, they are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and uncontrollable. The Buddha taught that these not-self phenomena are worthy of dispassion and disgust, not attachment. This leads to the sequence: dispassion leads to non-attachment, non-attachment leads to liberation. This is the Buddha's analysis of suffering.
When portraying the Buddha as revolutionary, some present him as establishing anatta-vada (doctrine of no-self). Actually, there is no such doctrine, and the Buddha never called himself an anatta-vadin. Instead, he said he was free from all doctrinal positions. He used the terms atta/anatta as tools when needed. Anatta is simply a perception tool for meditation practice to counter self-attachment.
The Buddha's truly revolutionary view was his teaching of Dependent Origination (Paṭiccasamuppāda). This principle aligns with concepts of anatta and suññata (emptiness) and serves as a tool to clear away all doctrinal thickets. The essence of Dependent Origination is that nothing exists independently. The aggregates, sense bases, and elements arise dependent on one another - one depending on many, many depending on one, or many depending on many. Because they are impermanent and without essence, they exist through mutual dependence and interconnection.The aggregates, sense bases, elements, and truths aren't separate entities but interconnected points within a single network. Only by seeing them this way can one begin to grasp the depth of Dependent Origination.
"Rūpaṃ attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā rūpaṃ, rūpasmiṃ vā attānaṃ..." (MN 44 Cūḷavedalla Sutta)
So when asked whether the Buddha's teaching of anatta means "there is no self" or "it is not-self," the primary meaning is "it is not-self." The aggregates, sense bases, and elements lack the characteristics of self and cannot be owned. Because they are not-self, they are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and uncontrollable. The Buddha taught that these not-self phenomena are worthy of dispassion and disgust, not attachment. This leads to the sequence: dispassion leads to non-attachment, non-attachment leads to liberation. This is the Buddha's analysis of suffering.
When portraying the Buddha as revolutionary, some present him as establishing anatta-vada (doctrine of no-self). Actually, there is no such doctrine, and the Buddha never called himself an anatta-vadin. Instead, he said he was free from all doctrinal positions. He used the terms atta/anatta as tools when needed. Anatta is simply a perception tool for meditation practice to counter self-attachment.
The Buddha's truly revolutionary view was his teaching of Dependent Origination (Paṭiccasamuppāda). This principle aligns with concepts of anatta and suññata (emptiness) and serves as a tool to clear away all doctrinal thickets. The essence of Dependent Origination is that nothing exists independently. The aggregates, sense bases, and elements arise dependent on one another - one depending on many, many depending on one, or many depending on many. Because they are impermanent and without essence, they exist through mutual dependence and interconnection.The aggregates, sense bases, elements, and truths aren't separate entities but interconnected points within a single network. Only by seeing them this way can one begin to grasp the depth of Dependent Origination.
This interpretation critiques all contemporary belief systems. Some claimed the world was created by a creator god. Others said it arose from the combination of primordial matter and consciousness. Some believed everything was predetermined by past causes. Others maintained that things happened randomly without specific causes. The Buddha refuted all these views through the doctrine of Dependent Origination (Paṭiccasamuppāda).
The Buddha based his analysis of suffering (dukkha) on Paṭiccasamuppāda. Suffering isn't caused by a creator, nor solely by past karma, nor does it arise without cause. He showed how craving leads to clinging, clinging leads to becoming, and becoming leads to suffering. He also explained how craving itself arises through Dependent Origination. He criticized various philosophical schools for being entangled in their views like thorny bushes because they didn't understand this principle. Some held eternalist views, some nihilistic views, some partial views, and some agnostic views - all because they didn't understand how Dependent Origination works. In this aspect, the Buddha indeed carried out a philosophical revolution.
On arūpa jhānas not being the final goal:
"Santā vā sā samāpatti, sāpi kho aniccā dukkhā vipariṇāmadhammā" (MN 106 Āneñjasappāya Sutta)
The Buddha based his analysis of suffering (dukkha) on Paṭiccasamuppāda. Suffering isn't caused by a creator, nor solely by past karma, nor does it arise without cause. He showed how craving leads to clinging, clinging leads to becoming, and becoming leads to suffering. He also explained how craving itself arises through Dependent Origination. He criticized various philosophical schools for being entangled in their views like thorny bushes because they didn't understand this principle. Some held eternalist views, some nihilistic views, some partial views, and some agnostic views - all because they didn't understand how Dependent Origination works. In this aspect, the Buddha indeed carried out a philosophical revolution.
On arūpa jhānas not being the final goal:
"Santā vā sā samāpatti, sāpi kho aniccā dukkhā vipariṇāmadhammā" (MN 106 Āneñjasappāya Sutta)
However, regarding spiritual practice, the Buddha was more of a reformer than a revolutionary. He was a samana (ascetic) who followed the samana tradition. His disciples sometimes called him Mahāsamana (the Great Ascetic). The samana tradition existed long before the Buddha, since ancient times. Samanas opposed Vedic traditions, renounced household life, and sought truth in solitude outside society. The Khaggavisāṇa Sutta in the Suttanipāta describes ancient samanas as Paccekabuddhas (Silent Buddhas), depicting them as solitary seekers of liberation like rhinoceros horns. Contemporary movements like Jainism founded by Mahavira and the Ājīvaka sect established by Makkhali Gosāla were also part of the samana tradition. The Buddha himself adopted the samana lifestyle when he was still a Bodhisatta (Buddha-to-be).
Although the Buddha-to-be followed the samana path, his first two teachers - Āḷāra and Uddaka - were actually Brahmin sages, not samanas. They taught the samatha-yānika path, focusing on arūpa jhānas (formless meditative absorptions) that progressively refined consciousness by removing mental characteristics until only pure awareness remained. These were methods from Sāṅkhya-yoga philosophy. The Buddha mastered these practices completely.
These meditation techniques genuinely provided peace and could establish the mind in the highest states of concentration. However, the Buddha realized these were not true liberation from suffering but only temporary cessations. His discovery was that even in the highest states of concentration, the mind still clung to the identity of "one who experiences jhānic bliss." He understood that as long as this identification remained, there was no escape from suffering. As long as there remained a duality between the experiencer and the experienced, true liberation (vimutti) was not achieved. So despite mastering these yogic practices, he abandoned them.
These meditation techniques genuinely provided peace and could establish the mind in the highest states of concentration. However, the Buddha realized these were not true liberation from suffering but only temporary cessations. His discovery was that even in the highest states of concentration, the mind still clung to the identity of "one who experiences jhānic bliss." He understood that as long as this identification remained, there was no escape from suffering. As long as there remained a duality between the experiencer and the experienced, true liberation (vimutti) was not achieved. So despite mastering these yogic practices, he abandoned them.
On the characteristic of non-self:
"Sabbe dhammā anattā'ti, yadā paññāya passati;
Atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā." (Dhp 279)
Today, there's a misconception that these arūpa jhāna practices are forms of self-torture (attakilamatha). Actually, arūpa jhānas are sukha-paṭipadā (pleasant path) practices, involving peaceful dwelling in meditative bliss, not self-mortification. They are neither the true path to liberation nor self-torture - they're simply extraordinary states of mind. The danger with arūpa jhānas is that they so closely resemble liberation that they can be mistaken for the final goal.
In many suttas, the Buddha described arūpa jhānas as stages of mental development while also teaching about their impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, uncontrollability, and non-self nature, showing they are not true liberation. In the Pārāyana Vagga, sixteen brahmin youths who were disciples of Bāvarī were practitioners of arūpa jhānas. The Buddha taught them how to use these states as a foundation for liberation, showing that while arūpa jhānas themselves aren't vipassanā, they can become objects of insight meditation. We also find examples of arahant monks during the Buddha's time occasionally entering arūpa jhānas for purification, indicating that Buddhism neither rejected nor opposed these practices as self-mortification. While not considering them the path itself, the Pārāyana Vagga shows there are doors to liberation even from arūpa states. From this perspective, the Buddha appears more as a reformer than a revolutionary.