International Review of Social Research 2019; 9(1): 18–27

Research Article

Nguyen Quy Hoang*

The Doctrine of Not-self (anattā) in Early

Buddhism
https://doi.org/10.2478/irsr-2019-0003
renowed thinkers such as Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and
Received: March 2, 2019; Accepted: March 14, 2019
Carl Rogers. The teaching of anattā is also a fundamental
Abstract: Anattā or the Not-Self is a very important concept concept in early Buddhism and plays an important role for
of Buddhism, which distinguishes it from other religions. understanding the nature of human existence and rebirth.
there are some ways to explain this doctrine and many The term Early Buddhism in this article refers to
debates were happened between Buddhist schools and the teachings and monastic organization and structure,
between Buddhists and the Brahmanists on this issue. founded by Gautama Buddha. It is also called Pre-
Early Buddhism analyse that self is the combination of sectarian Buddhism or Original Buddhism implying that
five aggregates (skandhas), and each of them is not the Buddhism that existed before the various subsects of
self. Based on this explanation, Buddhists think wrongly Buddhism caming into being.
that anattā is ‘No-self. Deeply understand and practice of This doctrine appears in the Discourse on the
the not-self concept will help practitioners of Buddhism Characteristic of Not-self (Anattālakkhana Sutta) (SN22.59,
to be free from all sufferings. So, one needs to have a clear PTS 1980). It involves some difficulties, such as- how the
understanding on this concept. The purpose of this paper continuity is maintained through the death to the rebirth
is to present a comprehensive view of Not-self (anattā) of the person. How can people trace back all the past
doctrine in Early Buddhism. All its related aspects are memories? How to explain the human free-will…? And
presented in succession. This article investigates the the given responsibility of action (kamma) without self is
doctrine of anattā, it is also examined with other related difficult to understand even for monks.
doctrines in Early Buddhism. By analyzing method, This paper is an attempt to analyze the not-self
the meaning of Not-self (anattā) in Early Buddhism is doctrine in relationship with the doctrine of Dependent
proposed by the author. (https://www.abebooks.de/buch- Arising (paticca samuppāda), the five aggregates (pañca-
suchen/titel/anatta/) khandha) and to find the way to explain all the said-above
logical difficulties
Keywords: Self, non-self, no-self, not-self, Early Buddhism
No-self or Not-self

Introduction Before analyzing the meaning of Not-self according

to Early Buddhism, the translation into English of the
term anattā needs to be discussed. This also helps us to
Not-self (anattā) is an attentive point of any religion
understand deeply the implication of this term.
because it is a core subject in many forms of spirituality,
In Buddhist philosophy, anattā (Pāli term) or
it is also the inner critic in Western psychoanalysis by the
anàtman (Sanskrit term) refers to ‘not-self’ or ‘absence of
independent self.’ The prefix ‘a’ in anattā and anàtman
Article note: This article is abridge from chapter I of ‘The Doctrine of bears the negative meaning (Not). It rejects the real or
Not Self (anattā) in the history of Buddhism in India’ by Nguyen Quy permanent self. So, ‘anattā’ conveys the meaning of
Hoang (Lambert Academic Publishing) negation of self or soul. The suitable English term for
*Corresponding author: Nguyen Quy Hoang, Paramount University anattā is ‘not-self’. Non-self, No-self are not appropriate.
of Technology, 101 Montgomery Street Suite 1500 , San Francisco, Yet, the translation of anattā into ‘no self’ cannot be
CA 94104, Buddhist Studies, International Buddhist College, 88, correct, because the grammar and syntax show that it is
Mu 2, Khlong-Ngae- Khuan Sato Rd, Thung Mo Sub-district, Sadao,
not a possessive adjective, but a descriptive compound,
Songkhia 90240, Thailand, E-mail: [email protected]
and if the translation for attā is “self”, then the word

© 2019 Nguyen Quy Hoang published by Sciendo.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License.
  The Doctrine of Not-self (anattā) in Early Buddhism  19

would mean ‘not self’(Norman,1997). impossible for the compounded things (saṅkhata); all
‘No’ and ‘Not’ have very different meaning, ‘No’means things will be destroyed and cannot last forever. A person
never existence, ‘Not’ means denial of something. The with greed, anger, and delusion cannot get real happiness
‘Not’ should be used instead of ‘No’. in life.
What does the not-self mean? The first it is not a So, it can be seen clearly that the Early Buddhism
permanent self. The second is nothing that pertains to brought out the Not-self concept for the practical purpose.
that self. ‘It is empty of self or what pertains to that self.’ Leaving self-attachment and self-possession would bring
(Steven, 2015) humans being to happiness and escape the suffering.
The Buddhist history in India shows that not all of
the Buddhist sections agree with the anattā concept. “Selfishness is a powerful negative force that brings bad conse-
quences, it is brought about by wrong views and the failure to
Vātsīputrīya claimed that the self (pudgala) existed. Nyāya
perceive the realities of life, and then they will cause the suffe-
School claimed that if there is no self, how can people rings for people. (Dhammanada, 1993, p.72)
trace back the memories? How can the kamma doctrine is
understood in logic way? Because the being of this life is
The teaching of not-self is a tool for helping people to put
totally different with the being of past life. There should
an end to suffering and stress. To believe that ‘I am this’ is
be a self; then the relationship between the doer and the
the origin of dukkha. This arises from the illusion of self.
recipient, can be explained and understood.
When there is no self there is no ‘mine’. When there is
So the English term of anattā should be ‘Not self’.
no ‘I’, dukkha does not occur. Self, I, and dukkha are all
Edward Conze also used this term “Not-self” for anattā
inseparable. Venerable Narada used a short paragraph in
(Conze, 1971) and the same with Steven Collinsin his book.
the Suttanta Piṭaka to quote for his work: “This body is
(Collin,1990)
not mine, this am I not, this is not my soul (N’etam mama,
n’eso’ham asmi, n’eso me attā).” (Narada, 1988, p.xi)
The purpose of Not-self
Thus, the Not-self doctrine is the base therapeutic of
mind. The Buddha was less interested in metaphysics than
The purpose of Not-self in Early Buddhism can be seen
in pointing the way to practical liberation from suffering.
clearly through the relation between self and dukkha.
Human being has the tendency to develop the attachments
Dukkha is often translated into English as ‘suffering’
to views and desires though the reinforcing notions of ‘me’
or ‘dissatisfaction’, however it is not fully correct. Dukkha
and ‘mine’. This is the cause of their suffering and not-self
has other meanings as impermanence, lack of freedom
can be used as a strategy for putting an end to clinging.
and imperfection
It finally serves as an effective strategy on the path to the
Dukkha is a real fact of life. This fact is the first thing one
end of stress. (Bhikkhu Thanissaro, 2016)
must comprehend (pariññeyya) and the following three
Furthermore, the Not-self doctrine stands in objection
truths are the result to this one. Any thoughtful person
to the ideas of Brahmanical philosophers who view
can see the life, in general, unsatisfactory. In Buddhist
self as an unchanging, non-physical and eternal entity
philosophy, dukkha is one of the three marks of existence
called àtman. From Buddhist point of view, there is
(ti-lakkhaṇa), namely aniccā, dukkha and anattā:
nothing permanent; everything is subject to decay and
“The Buddha taught: All compounded things (saṅkhāras) are destruction. It is a rapidly shifting stream of momentary
impermanent (sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā). All compounded things mental occurrences.
are unsatisfactory (sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā). All states are not-
self  (sabbe dhammā anattā).“Bhikkhus, what is impermanent is Self denial in Early Buddhism- What it really
suffering, what is suffering is not-self.” (Bhikkhu Bodhi, 2000,
p.869). means?

In Saṃyutta Nikāya 4.10, there is a dialogue relating to the

According to Buddhist view, Dukkha is a real fact of the
question of self existence.The Buddha kept silent with two
human life, because people attach to their self, they
questions of Vacchagotta: “is there a self? And is there no
indulge the self too much and fight each other to protect
self? He explained, after that, to the venerable Ānanda as
their selves. As a result, they feel suffering when their
follows:
selves are hurt and violated.
A self in common understanding can be described “If, Ānanda, when asked by the Wanderer: ‘Is there a self?’. I
as happiness finding and misery avoiding that a human had replied to him: ‘there is a self’, then, Ānanda that would be
expects. However, this thing is illusion. Happiness is siding with those ascetics and Brahmins who are Eternalists”
20   Nguyen Quy Hoang

“And if, Ānanda, when I was asked by him: ‘Is there no self?’ I
had answred, there is no self this would have been siding with,
Not-self and five aggregates
those ascetics and Brahmins who are Annihilationists.” (pañca-khandhā)
“If, Ānanda, when I was asked by the Wanderer Vacchagotta: ‘Is The term khandhā means a mass, a heap (rāsi), a collection
there a self?’ I had answered, ‘there is a self’, would this have of separate componets. In Buddhist terminology khandhā
been consistent on my part with the arising of the knowledge
has two meanings: (i) multipliable physic-psychological
that all phenomena are nonself ?”
phenomena; (ii) something that hinders an obstacle. The
“No, venerable sir.” first meaning is widely used and is especially applicable
to the five khandhas as groups or aggregates; the second
“And if , when I was asked by him: ‘Is there no self?’ I had meaning is in Chinese translations of the word skandha
answered, ‘there is no self’, the Wanderer Vacchagotta, already as ‘陰’which means hindrance, and ‘蘊’ means collection.
confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thin-
The ‘self’ in Buddhism is analyzed by the five khandās:
king, ‘it seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now.’
(Bhikkhu Bodhi, 2000, Pp. 1393-1394) rūpa, vedanā, saññā, sankhāra and viññāna. When these
five elements come together, people will have the illusion
of a permanent self. This illusion is the reason to cause
Through this dialogue, the Buddha’s view point on self
suffering for people.
and not-self is not rigid and extreme. In other words,
the Not-self doctrine cannot be explained in the way of So, the birth of an individual is described in the Pāli language
absolute negation of self, otherwise, it will put his doctrine as ‘khandhānaṃ paṭilābhaṃ…’ ‘the acquisition of aggregates’,
the same with Annihilationism which means those who and in reflection on one’s former experiences, one’s accounts
denied the rebirth and afterlife. may run like this “I was born there, of such and such a name, in
such a clan, such a class, enjoyed such a food, experienced such
The Sutta Nipāta quoted: “Such a Bhikkhu who has turned away and such happiness and suffering, such was my life-spent.” (U.
from desire and attachment, and is possessed of understanding Sīlananda, 1998, p. 233)
in this world, has (already) gone to the immortal peace, the
unchangeable of Nibbāna.” (Fausball, 1881, p.33) Various schools of Buddhism interpret the khandhās in
somewhat different ways.
So, the Not-self (anattā) doctrine does not bear the Generally, the first khandhā is our physical form. The
meaning of subject negation. It only implies that people second khandhā is made up of our feelings, emotional
should not adhere to the desires and lusts which are the and physical, and the senses - seeing, hearing, tasting,
reasons for their sufferings. touching, and smelling. The third khandhā, perception,
Early Buddhism also distinguished the difference takes in most of what we call thinking - conceptualization,
between conventional (sammuti sacca) and ultimate cognition, reasoning. This also includes the recognition
(paramattha sacca) truths and ‘those who do not that occurs when an organ comes into contact with an
understand the difference between these two truths do object. The object perceived may be a physical object
not understand the profound essence of the doctrine of or a mental one, such as an idea. The fourth khandhā,
the Buddha.’ (Paul, 2008) mental formations, includes habits, prejudices and
A statement is conventionally true if and only if it is predispositions. (Barbara O’Brien, 2017)
acceptable to common sense and consistently leads to Consciousness (viññāṇa) - the fifth khandhā is
successful practice. A statement is ultimately true if and awareness of or sensitivity to an object but without
only if it corresponds to the facts and neither asserts nor conceptualization, it merely confirms the presence of
presupposes the existence of any conceptual fictions. object, it arises when objects (āyatanas) come into contact
(Katie, 2013). They do not represent the two degrees of with senses and will cease depending on the conditions,
truth, of which one is superior or inferior to the other. so, it is not a self. With the same argument, the rest of
The sutta piṭaka is said to contain teachings mostly khandhās are not the self also. (Bhikkhuni Dhammanandā,
based on conventional terms (vohāra-desanā). In contrast, 2007)
the abhidhamma piṭaka is said to contain teachings mostly Viññāṇa appears when mind (citta) contact with
based on paramattha.(Y. Karunadasa, 2010) objects (ārammaṇa), it is the link between mind and
Buddhism does not deny a self in the empirical sense matter; it becomes contaminated citta leading people to
but in ultimate reality. The Buddhist teaching of anattā the birth-death cycle (saṃsāra).
does not proclaim the absence of individuality or self; it The most important to understand about the khandhā
only says there are no permanent and individuality and is that they are empty.. The person is conditioned by
unchanged self. nāmarūpa (name and form). He relates to others and
  The Doctrine of Not-self (anattā) in Early Buddhism  21

cannot exist by himself, so he must be selfless and they point to the inferiority of the self. Whatever pride or
impermanent. The Buddha claimed: humility may be, he reckoned that with the development
of Buddhism, old etymology of the words is forgotten or
“When there is a form, bhikkhus, by clinging to form, by adhe- deliberately lost sight of.
ring to form, such a view as this arises: ‘That which is the self
is the world; having passed away, that I shall be- permanent, Māna with the meaning pride has the equivalent term omāno
stable, eternal, not subject to change… (una-māno) meaning inferiority –complex. Besides, the original
meaning of māna derived from the root ‘man’, originally means
“What do you think, bhikkhu, is form…consciousness perma- conception, imagination. So, the basic meaning of this term is
nent or impermanent?” the conception of oneself in relation to others, superior or infe-
rior.
“Impermanent, venerable sir..”
Asmi means ‘I am’, the compound ‘I am’ denotes the high atti-
“But without clinging to what is impermanent, suffering and tude towards the individual existence. What, then, is asmi ‘I
subject to change, could such a view as that arise?” am’? It is “I have rùpa, rùpa is I myself, I myself is rùpa… and
the same for the rest of four aggregates.” Sasaki concluded that
“No, venerable sir.” (Bhikkhu Bodhi,2000,Pp.979-980) Asmi māna indicates ‘I am the five aggregates’. (Sasaki, 1986,
p.53)
What is normally thought as the ‘self’ by people is an
agglomeration of constantly changing physical and To analyze the self into five elements, the Buddhists or Not-
mental constituents known as ‘khandhās’ (aggregates). self theorists are also called reductionists, who consider
The Buddha repeatedly emphasized not only that the five that the existence of a person just consists in the existence
khandhās of being are “not-self,” but clinging to them also of a brain and body, and the occurrence of a series of
cause to suffer. (New World Encyclopedia, 2015) interrelated physical and psychological events. The parts
exist but the whole does not. (Mark Siderits, 1997)
“The five aggregatesare ‘of impermanent nature, of painful Buddhagosa had the same idea with the Buddhist
nature, of selfless nature” (aniccadhamma, dukkhadhamma,
reductionists when he said that:
anattadhamma); (Bhikkhu Bodhi, 2000, p.44)

“Hairs are mere conceptual fictions since they can be analyzed

Five aggregates are empty of self, but conventionally into color, shape, solidity, and smell. A particular smell, on the
being called self. Seeing is not a self seeing, but is simply other hand, presumably remains as the terminus of any analysis
the experience of? being seen. Volition is not via a doer, and is thus a dhamma. (Ñāṇamoli Bhikkhu, 2011, p.359)

but is simply action-activity-process, co-dependently

arisen. Consciousness is not a self, it is simply auditory In short, the way of analyzing the self into five aggregates
consciousness manifested dependent on ear, sound and by the Buddha, is to show the truth of human’s suffering
attention, so on and so forth. and open the way to escape this suffering.

“Consciousness may exist having matter as its means Not-self (anattā) and Dependant Arising
(rùpapàyan), matter as its object (rùpàrammanam), matter as its
support (rùpapatittham) and seeking delight it may grow, incre- (Paticca samuppāda)
ase and develop or consciousness may exist having sensation
as its means…or perception as it means…or mental formations The doctrine of not-self denies not only the self within the
as its means, mental formation as its object, mental formation personality, but also the substance of the phenomenal
as its support and seeking delight it may grow, increase and world under the concept of Dependent Arising.
develop. Were a man to say: I shall show the coming, the going,
Dependent Arising raises the real essence of all
the passing away, the arising, the growth the increase or the
development of consciousness apart from the matter, sensa-
dhamma, in other words, people can say
tion, perception and mental formation, he would be speaking of
“This entire world is without nature of its own”. Absolutely
something that does not exist” (Rahula, 1962, p. 25)
everything changes from each kṣaṇa (刹那) and never have the
ending” (Lee, 1995, p.3)
By linguistic approaching, Sasaki did an analysis of
Ego-Concept through three Sanskrit terms: māna, ātmi
Everything depends on each other. Nothing exists as
māna, ātma māna with the meaning ‘pride’; however,
singular; sentient-beings (sattva) are not an exception.
he discovered that in Sanskrit equivalents, they were not
The Buddha summarized the Dependent Arising doctrine
confined to ‘pride’: going beyond the meaning of pride
as follows:
22   Nguyen Quy Hoang

“When this exists, that comes to be.

three conditions for a person to take rebirth is revealed
With the arising of this, that arises.
When this does not exist, that does not come to be. in Aṅguttara Nikāya (A.III, 76, 77). Kamma  here
With the cessation of this, that ceases.” (Bhikkhu Bodhi 2000, is  kamma vipāka, the results of one’s actions serving
p.517) as the field; citta  refers to  paṭisandhi citta, the rebirth-
linking consciousness is the seed; and  taṇhā  is craving
These four stanzas reflect the meaning of Dependent that bound one to existence.Consciousness being one
Arising. It is the general law to explain the birth and the of the five Khandhas, is not a “being” or “atta”, it even
decay of all Dhamma. Because of general law, it is hard not the mind – nāma or a complex mental phenomena.
to explain the birth and decay of moral defilements of nāma or citta consist of four khandhas, to wit:
human beings, so the Buddha added in detail the Twelve vedanākkhandha, saññānakkhandha, saṅkhārakkhandha
Conditional factors: and viññaṇakkhanda. A citta or a state of mind is said to
arise together with varied mental-factors which determine
Ignorance (avijjā) conditions formations, formation (sankhāra) its quality. These mental factors include vedanā, saññā
conditions consciousness, consciousness (viññana) conditions
and saṅkhāra – volition. But this “bundle” what is called
mind and body, mind and body (nāma- rūpa) conditions the Six
sense bases, the six sense bases (sālayatana) conditions contact “mind”, even then is not fit to be called a being (satta).
, contact (phassa) conditions feeling, feeling (vedanā) condi- A being is ultimately consists of two constituents: nāma-
tions craving; craving (tanhā) conditions clinging; clinging mind and rūpa- body. (Bhikkhuni Dhammanada, https://
(upādāna) conditions becoming; becoming (bhava) conditions www.rongmotamhon.net/static/budsas/ebud/atta/ad05.
birth; birth (jāti) conditions aging and death (jarā-marana), the
htm)
Lord Buddha taught.(Bhikkhu Bodhi, 2000, p.533)
It would be better to consider the body as the self
rather than the mind because the body may last for some
In this cycle, every link depends on the previous link and
tens or a hundred of years. But the mind or consciousness,
in return causes the next link in the chain. If the cause
(citta, mana, viññāṇa), arises and vanishes rapidly in
is destroyed, the resultant thing will also be destroyed.
every moment (kṣaṇa).
They do not have a real own essence (asvabhāva). Nothing
Theravāda Buddhism went further to explain there is
outside or even within a human-being can last forever and
only the rebirth but does not have the self in this process:
exists independently. Not-self (anattā) and Dependent
Arising (paticca samuppāda)therefore, have the same “Misery only doth exist, none miserable;
meaning. No doer is there, naught but the deed is found
People have the tendency to cling to their desire. Nirvana is, but not the man that seeks it
When they look for the happiness, they consider their The paths exist but not the traveler on it.” (Eliot,1962, p.128)

selves are real. This creates the craving and increases the
clinging to worldly things. So, there is no permanence in anything then, there is
Nibbāna is often conceived as the stopping of this neither any continuity of the self. This explanation of
vicious cycle. By removing the causes for craving, craving Buddhaghosa in The Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga)
ceases. Therefore, with the ceasing of birth, death ceases. causes confusion for Buddhists.
With the ceasing of becoming, birth ceases, and so on, until The Buddhist law of kamma is based on the intentional
with the ceasing of ignorance, no kamma is produced, and actions through body, speech and mind of people. The
the whole process of death and rebirth ceases. This is the results will be determined by the nature of actions. If the
practical meaning of the paticca samuppāda. action is wholesome, the result will be pleasant. If the
action is unwholesome, the result will be suffered for the
Not-self and Kamma & Rebirth persons who act these actions.

“Whatever sort of seed is sown,

The combination of mind (citta) and matter (internal
That is the sort of fruit one reaps:
rūpa) is called a ‘life stream’. This life stream contains the
The doer of good reaps good;
kamma seed and becomes the subject factor of birth-death The doer of evil reaps evil” (Bodhi bhikkhu,2000, p.328)
cycle.
More technically, the ‘bhavaṅga citta’ and ‘Paṭisandhi
All that we take with us when we die are our good and
citta’ have the role to link life to life, according to
bad deeds, and thus “we should be sure to accumulate
Theravāda Abhidhamma.
merits, for in the next world, these are “the support for
The relationship between kamma, citta, and taṇhā as
living beings”. (Bodhi bhikkhu,2000, p.78)
  The Doctrine of Not-self (anattā) in Early Buddhism  23

So, too, bhikkhus, when one dwells contemplating danger in

Buddhists believe in the kamma law, any teaching
things that can be clung to, craving ceases…. Such is the cessa-
which denies this law would open the door to irresponsible tion of this whole mass of suffering...” (Bhikkhu Bodhi, 2000, p.
selfishness and non ethics. People can do bad things 591) (https://www.wisdompubs.org/book/connected-discour-
without any punishments. ses-buddha/selections/connected-discourses-part-ii-suffering-
In the Samaññaphala Sutta, the Buddha confirmed or-tree-0).
the kamma law against a group of six teachers; he affirmed
the theory of kamma and rebirth without the support of According to this view, nibbāna is merely a state that does
the notion of a transmigrating of self. not have ‘the individual self’ as its aim; it is the state of
However, if there is no-self, is the person in this life to selflessness. It exists when there are no defilements
inherit the kamma a different person in previous life? The (kilesa), no greed, hatred and illusion to be existed. When
Buddha never refutesa person (self) in birth-death cycle, rāga, dosa, moha are removed, a viññāṇa become pure
he only refute a permanent self or soul. and is not impacted by a given object, then the birth-
In the Milindapañha (“Milinda’s Questions”), death cycle is also stopped completely. This description is
the Buddhist monk Nāgasena attempts to give the relative because by nature, nibbāna is indescribable.
illustration for the King to understand the real meaning To attain nibbāna, one also has to get rid of the belief
of reincarnation: of self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi); this is also the main purpose of
anattā, a condition to experience the nibbāna.
“He who is reborn, Nàgasena, is he the same person or another?”
“Neither the same nor another.”
“Give me an illustration.”
Not-self with Eternalism and Nihilism
“In the case of a pot of milk that turns first to curds, then to
butter, then to ghee; it would not be right to say that the ghee, In the Kathāvatthu, self view is said to be divided into
butter and curds were the same as the milk but they have come two groups: nihilism (ucchedavāda) and eternalism
from that, so neither would it be right to say that they are (sassatavāda). (Davids, 1915, p.65). They represented the
something else.” (Bhikkhu Pesala, 1998, p.43)
two extreme views which people need to avoid.
Eternalism is the view that there is an eternal self. This
self would continue to exist after death. On the contrary,
Not-self (anattā) and Nibbāna
Nihilism is the view that there is no self that perishes after
death. In the Buddha’s account, the Middle Way involves
Pāli grammarians take nibbāna as composed of ni + va +
the avoidance of two extremes, eternalism and nihilism.
na. Here the negative particle ni means “out.” The root va
Self and not-self are both illusions need to be
is “to go” or “to blow,” and na is the suffix used to give
avoided, they are considered as two extremes- nihilism
an auxiliary sense; and the word is defined thus: “nibbāti-
and eternalism. We should dismiss the idea of self or
etenā’ti nibbānaṃ”-the aspirant goes out or becomes
an eternal soul, (eternalism), and nothing exists after
cool or extinct by the aid of this object. Hence it tends to
death (nihilism). The Buddha rejected two the extreme
the state of ‘Release’, and therefore it is called Nibbāna.
views.    Things change by when its conditions on which
(Vajiranana Thera, 1971, p.12)
they depend disappear . This is why the eternalist view is
Therefore, Nibbāna means ‘extinction’, it is the
considered wrong.
state without dukkha, the state of rāga, dosa, moha were
The Nihilists claim that there is no life after death. This
extinguished, the state of peace due to having a cessation.
view belongs to a materialistic philosophy. The teaching
This is not a cessation of life, but of defilements (kilesa)
of kamma is proving that the Buddha rejected nihilism;
and craving (ta‎ṇhā). Sometimes it is explained as “the
Buddhism accepts ‘an existence’ not in the sense of an
destruction of craving.” (Woodward,2004, p.327)
eternal state, but in the sense of a rebirth phenomenon.
The Buddha illustrated the concept of nibbāna as
Therefore, Buddhism is a kind of Middle path between two
follow:
extremes. (Siderits,1997)
“Suppose, bhikkhus, there was a great tree, and all its roots going In other word, to reject the permanent self means to
downwards and across would send the sap upwards. Sustained negate the two extreme views which are the confirmation
by that sap, nourished by it, that great tree would stand for a for self theory.
very long time. So, too, when one lives contemplating gratifica-
tion in things that can be clung to , craving increases…Such is
the origin of this whole mass of suffering.
24   Nguyen Quy Hoang

Not-self Theory and Its Problems The not-self concept will lead to the four issues as
follows:
The Memory issue
The first issue is what it is that acts? This amounts to specifying
which of the various ultimately real components that make up
Memory and recognition might be thought to present
a person is the agent of a deed. The second issue is to describe
insuperable difficulties. exactly what it is that experiences the consequences of the ori-
ginal action. This amounts to specifying which of the various
“If there is no self how is it then that detached moments of con- ultimately real components that make up a person is the expe-
sciousness can remember or recognize things which have been riencer of the consequences of the deed. A third issue is to give
experienced a long time ago.” Remembrance, as Vasubandhu in some account of the sense in which the agent of the original deed
his Abhidharmakośa-bhāsyasays, “Is a new state of conscious- is the same as the eventual experiencer of the consequences. A
ness directed to the same object, conditioned as it is by the pre- fourth issue is to explain how and where the potential conse-
vious states.” That the experience of A is not remembered by B quences of an action are “stored” until such time as they are
is because the series of states conventionally designated as A is realized as consequences that are capable of being experienced.
different from the series designated as B. (Hayes,1989, p.3 http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes/Lecture08.pdf)

This explanation, however ingenious, does not explain memory From the Western philosophy, it is not logical to raise
fully. Memory or recognition is not merely a revival of the object both doctrines of Not-self and Nibbāna at the same time
of the previous state, but there is the added consciousness that because who attains nibbāna if there is not-self”
‘I have experienced it before.’ (Murti, 2009, p.33) Moreover, referring to the sūtra of the Burden-bearer,
the Buddha said:
Memory of an object is not only records of the sensory
aspects of the object but also records of the sensory signals ‘I will teach you the burden, its taking up, its laying down and
the bearer of the burden. The five khandhās (which are the
and the emotional reaction to the object. It means when
range) of grasping are the burden. Craving takes up the burden.
object is recalled, people remember not only the sensory The renunciation of craving lays it down. The bearer of the
data but also the emotional data, the past reactions burden is the person: this venerable man, with such and such
relating to that object. That is not simply a new state of a name, born so and so, of such and such a clan, who sustains
consciousness directed to the same object, conditioned as himself on this or that food, experiences these pleasures and
pains, lives for just so long, terminate his life-span in just this
it is by the previous states as claimed by Vasubandhu.
way.’ (Conze, 1983, p.125)
Śaṅkarācārya had another view on this issue. He
thought that in memory, there is the presupposition of
People could make a comment that here the person was
the continual identity and persistence of the individual
distinguished from the five khandhās. If a person and their
doing the remembering. There is only one individual who
khandhās were identical, then the burden would carry
experiences the events, persons, objects and thoughts of
itself, which is absurd.
a particular life. People cannot remember the memories
Śaṅkarācārya of Vedānta showed the inconsistencies
of others , but their own experiences. Thus there is a
of the Buddhist concept of self: “if there is not-self, an
continuity of the experiencer. There is only one continuous
innocent being is suffering for the crime of another in the
experiencer, not many extending back in a randomly
law of kamma, this notion would be the same of original
assembled causal chain. (Morales,1999) Through memory
sin in Christianity religion, and this view is not in the
issue, Śaṅkarācārya confirmed an continuous existence of
harmony with Indian view of ethics.” If there is no being
self.
who is performing an action, there can certainly be no
Naiyāyikas reckoned that memory belongs to the soul
being to experience the results of that action. Anything
(self) which possesses the character of a knower; the soul
short of such a rigid causal requirement would be unjust.”
is competent to recollect a thing because it possesses the
(Morales, 1999)
knowledge of the three times- past, present and future.
If there is no self that persists through time, then the
(Vidyābhusana,1913)
result of my actions are not going to have any effect on me
because the self that carried out those actions no longer
The ‘Subject’ issue
exists.
By logic view,if one attempts to deny the existence
The first issue if ‘Not-self’ then who does all the things
of the self, then in this very denial, he is asserting the
that happensin life, who practices dhamma and who
existence of a self who is doing the negation.
takes rebirth? Who is being liberated?
  The Doctrine of Not-self (anattā) in Early Buddhism  25

Naiyāyikas proved the existence of self in Nyāya sutra the skandhas would be based on the person. Thus, the
by using the unity of consciousness: relation of “being based on” would be turned around.
A thing perceived previously by the left eye is However, according to the Vātsīputrīyas, the relation of
recognized now by the right eye. This would have been “being based on” simply means that the pudgala can only
impossible if the soul were identical with the left eye or the be perceived if there are khandhās in the first place.
right eye on the principle that the seat of recognition must Vasubandhu objects to this view because according to
be the same with the seat of perception. Consequently, we him, it would lead to the absurd claim that color ‘is based
must admit that there is the soul which is distinct from on” the existence of eyes because the eyes are necessary
the left and the right eyes and which is common seat of for the perception of color.
perception and recognition. (Vidyābhusana,1913) The problem with Vasubandhu’s argument is that:
Eyesight and sense of touch are two different feelings, First, the knowledge of the pudgala is based on the
if they happen with the same object, it must be the self perception of the khandhās and second that the knowledge
(subject) in behind to combine these feelings. , Without of the pudgala is gained through direct perception. But,
self, the unity of consciousness cannot be done. it is not clear why people cannot simultaneously have
a perception of the khandhās and a perception of the
The Free Will and Self pudgala? Given an example of the perception of a moving
train, people can perceive the train at the same time with
The status of free will is one of the most significant issues the movement, so is it not logical to say one cannot gain
relating to Not-self theory. Buddhists believe that humans knowledge of the existence of a pudgala through the
have free will. Will or volition is one important factor in perception of khandhās?
12-links of Dependent Origination --‘mental formation’
(Saṅkhāra).
The doctrine of not-self does not allow for an entity
Discussion
that functions as the subject of the will. This theory relies
The subject of actions and the real self must be
on the view that skandhas are causally related and has
distinguished. Early Buddhism does not accept the self as
not an individual subject. So, if the will does not exist in
real. However, the critical points of this doctrine almost
isolation from previous causal influences, and there is no
focus on the subject aspect. The memory issue, the
subject that is independent of this causal influence, then
unification of consciousness, the value of morality, and
it is not clear to what extent Buddhist philosophers can
the karmic law would be nonsense without the subject.
legitimately claim that people have free will. (Emmanuel,
Early Buddhism distinguished the two levels of
2013, quoted from Joerg Tuske p. 425)
truth when it brings out the Not-self (anattā) concept:
Although, human beings are not entirely free, because
conventional and ultimate truths. On daily activities, it is
they are imprisoned by mental kilesas (defilements) such
convenient to talk about the ‘self’ as human needs in order
as lobha, dosa, moha, which in turn stem from their
to make sense of what is being experienced. But, on an
ignorance of the true nature of reality; they lead their
ultimate level, there is no such thing as ‘self’ as everything
lives under the domination of these defilements with the
is interconnected with each other.
bondage to their resultant suffering. But in certain cases,
When Buddhism denies each of the five aggregates
some positive wills such as will for liberation, for saving
(khandhās) is not attā, it does not mean that there really is
the relatives, for obtaining some difficult tasks in life…
no attā, it merely means that each khandha is not ‘human
still exist in human mind. These wills are the motive for
attā”. And the combination of them does not create the
them to be directed toward the liberative purpose.
real self with the meaning eternal existence.
One of the important paths in the Eightfold Path
The self to be denied is the one in ultimate level. The
(Ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo) is right effort (sammā- vāyāmā),
self linking with five aggregates still exists; it can be called
if not-self who does the effort?
a conventional self. Therefore, it is not correct to have the
inference that there is no self when the Buddha teaches
The Perception issue
not-self.
Oetke, a Buddhist scholar also agreed the two levels
Vasubandhu in Abhidharmakośa-bhāsya mentioned that
of truth when he made some comments in Milindapañha;
no self exists separate from the 5 khandhās. The Person
however, according to him, it is not clear what exactly
is the 5 khandhās and the khandhās are real. He argues
is meant by the term pudgala. The interpretation is not
that, if we could perceive a person (pudgala) directly,
26   Nguyen Quy Hoang

The profound and subtle appropriating (ādāna) consciousness

helpful by the fact that we have a Pāli version as well as a
Flows with all its seeds like a turbulent stream
Chinese version of the story, and that these differ in certain I did not teach to the fools
details. Oetke argues that the most plausible interpretation Lest they should imagine it to be a (real) self. (Conze, 1983, p.134)
of both of the versions is that pudgala consists of parts,
namely the khandhās, and is therefore comparable So, Buddhism does not reject the existence of anattā
to terms such as ‘house’, ‘tree’, or ‘army’…which also operating together with the bhavaṅga, cuti and paṭisandhi
consist of parts. According to the Milindapañha, these citta. The combination of five aggregates is destroyed by
terms do not exist in “true reality” but are merely used the end of one’s life but the new combination will form
conventionally. Therefore it is not logical to say that the as the result of one’skamma. However, there’s nothing
Milindapañha rejects the concept of a subject, only that considered as a “real self” that is reborn, just the ‘a self’
it rejects its existence in “true reality”. Even in the most established by the stream of kamma. It is on the way to
famous Buddhist text, with regard to the not-self theory, evolve for the nibbāna ending.
we do not have an explicit rejection of the self, merely the There should be a ‘self’ in conventional meaning to
claim that the existence of the self is different from the exist, bhavaṅga and paṭisandhi citta as the connection
existence of its parts. (Emmanuel, 2013, quoted from Joerg between lives; they support for this self to be continued.
Tuske p.422) This self drifts continuously in ‘Three Realm’ until
Buddhism views everything as anattā due to no reaching nibbāna state.
real essence in all things. They arise because they are The morality aspect, the free-will, the perception,
conditioned. They change and cease because their the subject of actions and other logic issues could be
conditions change or cease. Buddhism asserts that the explained easier with the concept of impermanent self.
concept of real self is simply an idea stemming from And the “Not- self” doctrine must not be understood as
misunderstanding by human beings, who do not perceive “No-self”.
the true nature of the world.
In abbhidhamma analysis by early Buddhism, self is
simply a continuous stream of energy in action like the
Conclusion
continuous flowing of a river or the continuous burning
Not-self is a unique doctrine in the Indian Buddhist
of a flame. (Aurobindo, 1969, p.22). The concept of life-
thought. And there have been different ways to explain
continuum is call bhavaṅga. This explains the faculty of
this doctrine. Early Buddhism thought that self is merely
memory, paranormal psychic phenomena, mental and
the combination of five aggregates (skandhas), each of
physical growth, kamma and rebirth. It is considered as
them is not self. By this explanation, almost Buddhists
“subconscious life stream” (bhavaòga-sota).(Nyanatiloka,
think wrongly that ‘Not-self’ is ‘No-self’.However, based
1972, p.33)
on the etymology of the term ‘anattā’ as mentioned above,
Bhavaṅga literally means “factor of life”; it is
the exact meaning of anattā is not a real self or permanent
translated into English as “life-continuum”. The bhavaṅga
soul.
- citta keeps the continuity in a lifespan, so that ‘being’ can
The self is not an issue but to consider it as an
go on to live from moment to moment. It is very important
imperishable entity is a serious problem. This wrong
for any individual in being alive.
concept leads humans to suffering realms. The Buddha’s
“Bhavaṅga is explained as cause, reason, indispensable con- last words: Hence, Oh, Ananda! Take refuge in your island,
dition of the being, it is the sine qua non of being’s existence, in yourself, not in others, in the island of truth, in truth
that without which one cannot subsist or exist.” (Govinda, 1975, itself, not in others.(Sasaki, 1986). The self in this case was
p.180) implied for the unreal self.
However, the concept of self and not-self need to be
The memory issue and karmic law could be solved transcended, as it is mentioned in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
by this bhavaṅga citta. Modern scholarship suggests byNāgārjuna:
that bhavaṅga citta and ālaya vijñāna are similar to “The Buddha taught self, the Buddha taught not-self
unconscious state of the mind. To some extent, bhavaṅga and the Buddha also taught neither self nor not-self”
is the base to develop the concept of ālaya-vijñāna of (Siderits, 2013, p.298). Self, No-self, Not-self become
Yogācāra which means “storehouse consciousness,” nonsense in the state of nibbanā.
where karmic seeds are held. It extinguishes with death,
but is the first to be reborn.
  The Doctrine of Not-self (anattā) in Early Buddhism  27

Bibliography Steven M.Emmanuel (2015). A Companion to Buddhist Philosoph.

Wiley-Blackwell; 1sted.,
Thien, Thich Chon. (1999). Ly thuyet nhan tinh qua kinh tang Pāli
(The Concept of Personality revealed through the Pañcanikāya).
Primary Sources Vietnam: HCM Publisher.
Sīlananda, Ref. U (1998). No Inner Core: Introduction to the Doctrine
Aung, Shwe Zan & Davids, Rhys (1915). Kathāvatthu: Points of of anatta. Burma: Inward Path Publisher.
Controversy.. UK: PTS Vajiranana Thera, Parawahera (1971). The Buddhist Doctrine of
Bodhi Bhikkhu (2012). Aṅguttara Nikāya: The Numerical Discourses Nibbāna. USA: Kandy, Buddhist Publication Society.
of the Buddha.USA: Wisdom Publication. Paul William. (2000). Mahāyāna Buddhism. Routledge (2nded).
Bodhi Bhikkhu (2000). Saṃyutta Nikāya: The Connected Discourses London : Routledge.
of the Buddha. USA: Wisdom Publication.
Fausboll,V (1881).The Sutta Nipata: The Group of Discourses.UK:
Electronic Sources
Oxford Press.
Mark Siderits, and Shōryū Katsura (2013). Mūlamadhyamakakārikā: Baggini’s Julian(2012),Awaken to Reality
Nāgārjuna’s Middle Way. USA: Wisdom Publications. (https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2012/06/eternalism-
Narada Thera (1993) The Dhammapada: Pāli Text and Translation nihilism-and-middle-way_17.html)
with Stories in Brief and Notes. Taiwan: the Buddha Educational Barbara O’Brien (2017). Definition of Buddhist term Skandha..
Foundation. (http://buddhism.about.com/od/abuddhistglossary/g/skandhadef.
Ñāṇamoli Bhikkhu (2011). Visuddhimagga: The Path of Purification. htm)
Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society Bhikkhu Thanissaro (1994). The Not-self Strategy.
Pesala Bhikkhu (1998). The Milanda Panna: The Debate of King (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/
Milinda.Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass. nonselfstrategy.pdf)
Vidyābhusana (1913). Mahāmahopādhyāya Satisa Chandra: The Bhikkhuni Dhammananda (2007). The Connection between Attā and
Nyāya sutra of Gotama.Indian: Indian Press. Dukkha. (https://www.rongmotamhon.net/static/budsas/
Woodward F.L (2004). Some Sayings of the Buddha (According to the ebud/atta/ad05.htm)
Pāli Canon).Taiwan: The Buddha Educational Foundation. Hayes, Richard P (2012). Can sense be made of the Buddhist theory
Secondary Sources of karma?. (https://www.unm.edu/~rhayes/karma_brock.pdf)
Aurobindo, Sri (1969) The problem of Rebirth. India: Sri Aurobindo Javanaud, Katie (2013). Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine
Ashram Press. Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana.
Conze, Edward (1971) Buddhist Scriptures. USA: Penguin Books Ltd. (https://philosophynow.org/issues/97/Is_The_Buddhist_No-Self_
Conze, Edward (1983). Buddhist Thought in India- Three Phase of Doctrine_Compatible_With_Pursuing_Nirvana)
Buddhist Philosophy. London:Allen & Unwin. Karunadasa, Y (2010). Theravada version of the two truths.
Collin, Steven (1990). Selfless Persons: Imagery and Thought in (http://skb.or.kr/down/papers/094.pdf)
Theravada Buddhism, Cambridge University Press (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine)
Dhammanada, K. Sri. (1989) How to live without fear and worry. Katie Javanaud (2013). Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible
Malaysia: BMS Publications. With Pursuing Nirvana.
Dhammanada, K.Sri (1993). What Buddhists Believe?Taiwan: The (https://philosophynow.org/issues/97/Is_The_Buddhist_No-Self_
Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation. Doctrine_Compatible_With_Pursuing_Nirvana)
Eliot, Charles Eliot (1962) Hinduism and Buddhism: An Historical Morales, Frank (1999). The Ontology of Self in Three Systems of
Sketch. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Indian Philosophy: A Comparative and Veridical Analysis.
Emmanuel, Steven M (2013) A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy. (http://veden-akademie.de/index.php?article_id=152&clang=1)
USA: John Wiley & Sons. Inc. New World encyclopedia (2015).
Govinda, Anagarika B (1975). The Psychological Attitude of Early (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Anattā)
Buddhist Philosophy. Delhi: Nag Publisher. Siderits, Mark (1997). Buddhist reductionism.
Lee, Yuan Chin (1995). The direct approachtoBuddhadharma. USA: (http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/siderit.htm)
the University of Virginia. https://www.rongmotamhon.net/static/budsas/ebud/atta/ad05.
Murti, T.R.V (2009). The central Philosophy of Buddhism. UK: htm
Routledge Digital Printing. https://accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notselfstrategy.
Narada, Thera (1988). The Buddha and his teaching. US: BPS. pdf
Norman, K.R (1997). A Philological approach to Buddhism. https://www.wisdompubs.org/book/connected-discourses-buddha/
University of London. selections/connected-discourses-part-ii-suffering-or-tree-0
Nyanatiloka (1972). Buddhist Dictionary, Manual of Buddhist terms
and doctrines.Sri Lanka:Buddhist Publication Society.
Rahula, Wapolar. (1962). What the Buddha taught. USA: Grove Press
Inc.
Sasaki, Genjun H. (1986). Linguistic approach to Buddhist Thought.
Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass.
Somaratena, G.A. (2011). Unit 5: Not-self. Thailand: IBC College.