10. The Characteristic of Non-Self (anattā)

Some Suttas seem to make insight into one or another of the three characteristics/marks (tilakkhaṇa) alone sufficient for reaching the goal. The three characteristics, however, are closely interwoven and thus the most common formula found in many places in the Five Nikāyas builds upon their internal relationship.

It runs:

i. All sankhāras are impermanent (sabbe sankhārā aniccā),
ii. All sankhāras are unsatisfactory/suffering (sabbe sankhārā dukkhā),
iii. All dhammas are without self (sabbe dhammā anattā).

According to Maurice Walshe (1995) an-attā (Skt an-ātman) ‘non-self’ is the negative of attā/ātman ‘self’. So much is clear. In ordinary usage attā is a pronoun used for all persons and genders, singular and plural, meaning ‘myself’, ‘herself’, ‘ourselves’, ‘themselves’, and so on. It has no metaphysical implycations whatsoever. This, then, is the self of daily life, which has a purely relative and conventional reality if only because it is an almost indispensable expression in everyday speech. As a noun, attā to the Buddhist means an imaginary entity, a so-called ‘self’, which is not really there. The five khandhas or aggregates do not constitute a self, either individually or collectively. Our so-called ‘self is something bogus. It is a concept that we cling to with great tenacity, however.

As three characteristics presented above, the first and second of these apply to all mundane things, everything that ‘exists’ (sankhāra). The third refers in addition to the unconditioned element (a-sankhata). This does not ‘exist’. Thus, nothing lasts forever, all things being subject to change and disappearance. Nothing is completely satisfactory. The following Sutta which is the Buddha’s second discourse at Deer Park talks about the ‘Three Characteristis’ (tilakkhaṇa).

The Blessed One said:

“Monks, form is nonself. For if, monks, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to determine form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus’. But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to determine form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus’.

“Feeling is nonself.... Perception is nonself.... Volitional formations are nonself.... Consciousness is nonself. For if, monks, consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to determine consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus’. But because consciousness is non-self, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to determine consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus’.

“What do you think, monks, is form permanent or impermanent?” -“Impermanent, venerable sir.”–“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”–“Suffering, venerable sir.”–“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”–“No, venerable sir.”

“Is feeling permanent or impermanent?... Is perception permanent or impermanent?... Are volitional formations permanent or impermanent?... Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”–“Impermanent, venerable sir.”–“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”–“Suffering, venerable sir.”–“Is what is imperma-nent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”–“No, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, monks, any kind of form whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all form should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’.

“Seeing thus, monks, the instructed noble disciple becomes disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with volitional formations, disenchanted with consciousness. Becoming disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion [his mind] is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated’. He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the spiritual life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming back to any state of being’.”

(Samyutta Nikāya, Sutta number 22.59)

The above Sutta shows that formula uses the characteristic of impermanence to reveal the characteristic of suffering, and both together to reveal the characteristic of nonself. The Suttas take this indirect route to the characteristic of nonself because the selfless nature of things is so subtle that often it cannot be seen except when pointed to by the other two characteristics. When we recognize that the things we identify as our self are impermanent and bound up with suffering, we realize that they lack the essential marks of authentic selfhood and we thereby stop identifying with them.

We can find in several Suttas in the Five Nikāyas, particularly in the Majjhima Nikaya in which the Buddha gives forceful expression to his repudiation of views of self such as in Majjhima Nikāya, Sutta number 102. The Buddha undertakes a far-reaching survey of the various propositions put forth about the self, declaring them all to be “conditioned and gross” (Majjhima Nikāya, Sutta number 102). In Majjhima Nikāya, Sutta number 2.8 six views of self are branded as “the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views.” In Majjhima Nikāya, Sutta number 11 the Blessed One compares his teaching point by point with those of other recluses and brahmins and shows that beneath their apparent similarities, they finally diverge on just this one crucial point the rejection of views of self-which undermines the agreements. The Majjhima Nikāya, Sutta number 22 offers a series of arguments against the view of self, culminating in the Buddha’s declaration that he does not see any doctrine of self that would not lead to sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. In Buddha’s map of the steps to liberation, identity view (sakkāyadiṭṭhi) , the positing of a self in relation to the five aggregates, is held to be the first fetter to be broken with the arising of the “vision of the Dhamma.”

As we seen above, the principle of non-self is shown in the Suttas to follow logically from the two marks of impermanence and suffering. The standard formula states that what is impermanent is pain or suffering, and what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change cannot be regarded as mine, I, or self (Majjhima Nikāya, Sutta number 22.26; 35.20). Other passages highlight the relationship among the three characteristics from different angles as the Majjhima Nikāya, Sutta number 28 points out “when the external physical elements-earth, water, fire, and air -vast as they are, are periodically destroyed in cosmic cataclysms, there can be no considering this transitory body as self.” Majjhima Nikāya, Sutta number 148 also demonstrates that impermanence implies non-self: when all the factors of being are clearly subject to rise and fall, to identify anything among them with self is to be left with the untenable thesis that self is subject to rise and fall. And the Majjhima Nikāya, Sutta number 35.19 connects the mark of non-self with that of dukkha by arguing that because we cannot bend the five aggregates to our will, they cannot be taken as mine, I, or self.

The teaching of non-self is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible. It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine, and with which the entire fundamental of the Buddhist teaching stands or falls. All the remainning Buddhist doctrines may, more or less, be found in other philosophic systems and religions, but the anattā ‘non-self’ doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly only taught by the Buddha. In the Majjhima Nikāya, Sutta number 11 the Buddha compares his teaching point by point with those of other Teachers and admits that under their apparent similarities, they finally diverge on just this one crucial point that is the rejection of views of self -which undermines the agreements. It is for this unique doctrine that the Buddha is seen as the anattā-vādi ‘teacher of impersonality’.

Shortly, the theory of Dependent Origination proceeds synthetically, by showing that all phenomena or events are, in some way or by this or that way, conditionally related with each other, whereas the theory of Non-Self (anattā) proceeds analytically, by splitting existence into the ultimate constituent parts, into mere empty, unsubstantial phenomena or elements. Through the discussion on the three marks, the evidence is borne out by the third characteristic: all dhammas are without self. Thus, the term dhamma here includes Nibbāna, the Buddhist ultimate, as the Diamond Sutra strongly affirms: “No Venerable sir, no any dhamma [for the Tathāgata] to attain the Sammā-sambudha ‘the Perfect Enlightened One’, and no any existent dhamma that the Tathāgata can preach, too.”