Anatta- "Not-self"

Source: wikipedia

Definition of Anatta

In Buddhism, (Pali: Anatta) refers to the notion of "not-self". In the Pali suttas and the related Nikayas, the agglomeration of constantly changing physical and mental constituents ("Skandhas") comprising a human being is thoroughly analyzed and stated not to comprise an eternal, unchanging self (often denoted "Self"). In the Nikayas, the Buddha repeatedly emphasizes not only that the five skandhas of living being are "not-self", but that clinging to them as if they were an immutable self or soul (Atman) gives rise to unhappiness.

Anatta, along with Dukkha (suffering/unease) and Anicca (impermanence), is one of the three Dharma seals, which, according to Buddhism, characterize all conditioned phenomena.


Anatta in the Nikayas

The Buddhist term “Anatta” is used in the Suttas both as a noun and as a predicative adjective to denote that phenomena are not, or are without, a Self, to describe any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal and temporal things, from the macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter pertaining to the physical body or the cosmos at large, as well as any and all mental machinations, which are impermanent. Anatta is often used in conjunction with the terms Dukkha (imperfection) and Anicca (impermanence), and all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all compounded phenomena. “All these aggregates are Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta.”

Samyutta Nikaya

At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?” The blessed one simply replied; “Just this, Radha, form is not the self (anatta), sensations are not the self (anatta), perceptions are not the self (anatta), assemblages are not the self (anatta), consciousness is not the self (anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done.”

The nikayas state that certain things (the five aggregates), with which the unlearned man identifies himself, do not constitute a personal essence and that is why one on the path to liberation should grow disgusted with them, become detached from them and be liberated.

“Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind away from these and gathers his mind/will within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!”

In Samyutta Nikaya (SN) 4.400,

Gautama Buddha was asked if there was no soul (Natthatta), which it is conventionally considered to be equivalent to Nihilism (Ucchedavada). The Buddha himself has said: “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (Vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering, and its ending.” The early Suttas see annihilationism, which the Buddha equated with denial of a Self, as tied up with belief in a Self. It is seen as arising due to conceiving a Self in some sort of relationship to the personality-factors. It is thus rooted in the 'I am' attitude; even the attitude 'I do not exist' arises from a preoccupation with 'I'.

The Buddha criticized conceiving theories even of a unitary soul or identity immanent in all things as unskillful. In fact, according to the Buddha's statement in Khandha Samyutta 47, all thoughts about self are necessarily, whether the thinker is aware of it or not, thoughts about the five aggregates or one of them.

At the time of the Buddha some philosophers and meditators posited a "root": an abstract principle out of which all things emanated and which was immanent in all things. When asked about this, instead of following this pattern of thinking, the Buddha attacks it at its very root: the notion of a principle in the abstract, superimposed on experience. In contrast, a person in training should look for a different kind of "root" — the root of dukkha experienced in the present. According to one Buddhist scholar, theories of this sort have most often originated among meditators who label a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, and identify with it in a subtle way.