Buddhism and its Relation to Religion and Science, by R.G. de S. Wettimuny: Gunasena & Co. (Colombo, Ceylon, 1962)
the Buddha taught action without an actor [in his two fundamental doctrines of Impermanence (anicca) and Not-Self-ness (anattāya). The three dimensional “object” of the earlier physics was a mathematical interpretation of the concept of Self-ness (attāya) which the Buddha so emphatically rejected, i.e., of a persisting thing.] noted by a wavy line: X
[That is, the concept makes out definitely circumscribed identities or entities out of things. But Reality knows no such entities, permits no such circumscribings. Reality is all movement, all action. It is what the Buddha defines as a becoming (bhava).] noted by a wavy line: X
[The fact is that all thinking sets in with this opposition to truth, with the accentuation of the is and not with the realization of the basic fact of becoming. And until this basic characteristic of Reality is perceived, nothing of Reality is rightly perceived.]: X This is totally mistaken.
[The sensations that one receives through his sense organs such as the eye and the ear, always relate to an instant slightly earlier to that of the sensations. "It is the inexorable law of our acquaintance with the external world that that which is presented for knowing becomes transformed in the process of knowing."] noted with a wavy line: How do you know?
[“Just, Khitta, as from a cow comes milk, and from milk, curds, and from curds, butter, and from butter, ghee, and from ghee, junket; but when it is milk it is not called curds, or butter or ghee, or junket; and when it is curds, it is not called by any other name; and so on. For these, Khitta, are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world. And of these a Tathāgata makes use indeed, but is not led astray by them." (Dīgha Nikāya 9)] after 'and so on': This omits a passage about, attā, which is what the second part is referring to.
[Or, as the Venerable Sāriputta pointed out, the word 'hut' is merely a convenient designation for various materials put together after a certain fashion so as to circumscribe a portion of space; not that it means there is a hut-entity in existence.]: Why not? There is, at that time, a hut.
[The simile given by the Buddha to indicate this movement of the Grasping Groups is that of the burning flame.] 'by the Buddha' u/l: Where is this simile? [Ed.: e.g. S.44, x. 9/ S. iv: 281 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.009.than.html]
[In each of the Five Grasping Groups is seen an arising and passing away,]: and an invariance under transformation. Uppādo paññāyati vayo paññāyati ṭhitassa aññathattaṃ paññāyati—Khandha Saṃy. no. 37.
[“This same Grasping is not those Five Grasping Groups, nor yet is it something apart from those Five Groups.” (Saṃyutta Nikāya III). It is “neither the same, nor yet another” (na ca so na ca añño). This same teaching of the Buddha—na ca so na ca añño—is expressed in the words: "The future is never entirely determined by the past, nor is it ever entirely detached." Just as the flame that now is, is not the same flame that was a moment ago, nor yet is something apart from that flame, but is the result of the growth of that flame, so is it with these Five Groups.] noted by a wavy line: X
[na ca so na ca añño] u/l: This celebrated phrase is not to be found in the Suttas. It occurs in the Milinda.
[Things...present themselves exactly as processes which allow of no dissections,]: They do not.
[Thereby they make their readers to infer that the Buddha did not say there is no Self.]: The Buddha did not, in fact, say there is no self. To assert there is no self—natthi attāti—is to fall into ucchedavāda. The Buddha said that nothing is self—sabbe dhammā anattā—which is not the same thing.
[The five senses—eye, ear, nose, tongue and body, belong to the first Khandha, Form. The sixth sense, mind or thinking, belongs to the next three Khandhas—Sensation, Perception, Mental Tendencies.]: X
[“Consciousness and its supporting points are not opposites, but transitions, one the form of development of the other, in which the Saṅkhāras represent that transition-moment in which thinking as Vedanā and Saññā, in the glow of friction, is on the point of breaking out into Viññāṇa.” (Dahlke).]: X
[It is neither the function of a Self nor a fall between two states of potential, but a “process of growth, in which one moment becomes another, passes into another, just as one moment of a flame is neither the same as the next nor yet another, but becomes the next.”]: X
[For life starts off with the accentuation of the is in the mind and not with the comprehension of the basic fact of becoming. Nothing is. Everything becomes, depending on the preceding conditions and the nutriments available. To see the becoming nature of things means to see their Not-Selfness, Becoming, Transient, Not-Self—these are all synonymous....]: X
[It is where no such understanding is, that one finds introduced into the Buddha-word also, that gross misconception called "mind-and-matter." The splitting of Reality into two dissimilar things called mind (on the metaphysical side), and matter (on the physical side), is one of the greatest errors of human thought.] noted and checked
[With every change in Consciousness there comes about a change in Name-and-Form. This change in Name-and-Form in turn conditions a new Consciousness, which latter Consciousness again conditions a new Name-and-Form.]: X
[This arising and ceasing from its own preceding conditions as a universally applicable law is what flashes forth into the minds of Buddhas] 'preceding' u/l: No!
[His is a residual Grasping, like the residual burning of the flame which having burnt out all its fuel is now burning towards the end of all burning. The Arahat Grasps only towards the end of all Grasping.] 'His is a residual Grasping' and Arahat Grasps' u/l: ! Saupādisesa nibbānadhātu is not sa-upādāna.
[Certainly, Nibbāna in its second phase is the annihilation of the Grasping Groups (barring of course the Group of Form)]: X
regarding Ven. Khemaka, [In spite of his intellectual acceptance of Not-Self, he still reacts to things with the conceit 'I am.'] 'intellectual acceptance' u/l: He was anāgāmī!