This conception of a group of aggregates (samskaras) created an exciting school of philosophy, that of the Sarvathavadins. They believed that everything is real (sarvam asti), that is, the perceptions are real, and this, inevitably, leads to the theory of particles. Our so-called universe is nothing but particles, forces (dharmas)—there are some seventy-five of them—which appear (asata utapada) arising from nowhere and going nowhere (niranvaya vinasha). Remember disappearance is of the very nature of existence. ‘What does not disappear does not exist.’ For every sense perception is afire. ‘Look, the universe is burning!’ Thus then, time is to be considered just a dharma, a particle, appearing and disappearing. Hence was Buddhism called Kshanika vijnana or the philosophy of momentariness. In this sense there is no universe, and of course no self. ‘To think there is a self is a perverted view,’ said the great Buddhist sage Vasubandhu. A group of elements or particles needed somehow an element to bind them together. That was of course consciousness, only one element nonetheless among the seventy-five elements. Thus consciousness came back from the rear door. ‘Consciousness,’ says the Abhidharmakosha, one of the great Buddhist texts, ‘Consciousness is metaphorically called a self.’

This analytical excess of the Sarvathavadins leads to a dead end again: ‘. . . [T]he error of clinging to the ultimates of analysis as ultimates-in-reality. The imagination that the distinct being is distinct, is separate and substantial . . . is the basic error in the doctrine of elements.’ As a reaction to this sophistication rose Mahayana, the great way, the non-exclusive way which overturned the whole of the realistic system, that by creating the denial of the self created the non-self as the self. One had therefore to reach a condition beyond both the existence of the self and the non-self, showing the Middle Way. ‘The Buddha teaches the Middle Way, cancelling the two extremes, and that is the way of neither duality nor non-duality.’ The mind has to reach the mood of the diamond cutter, so skilful one should be. ‘One cannot become a Buddha if one believes he is a being, a person. One cannot also become a Buddha if one believes in objects. Nor a belief that there exists any idea or no idea. For the reality of an idea brings one directly to the thought of the self.’ Therefore does one come to the conclusion: What is taught by the Buddha is incomprehensible and inexpressible. However, the Buddha had in actual fact preached of Selfhood. ‘Selfhood, Selfhood,’ he had said. ‘It meant no Selfhood. Therefore it is called Selfhood.’