Professional Documents
Culture Documents
org/wiki/Philosophy:Anatta)
Anattā (non-self, no enduring soul or essence) is the nature of all things, and this is one of the
three marks of existence in Buddhism, along with Anicca (impermanence, nothing lasts)
and Dukkha (suffering, unsatisfactoriness is innate in birth, aging, death, rebirth, redeath – the
Saṃsāra cycle of existence).[23][24] It is found in many texts of different Buddhist traditions,
such as the Dhammapada – a canonical Buddhist text.[25] Buddhism asserts with Four Noble
Truths that there is a way out of this Saṃsāra.[26][27]
While the concept of soul in Hinduism (as atman) and Jainism (as jiva) is taken for granted,
which is different from the Buddhist concept of no-soul, each of the three religions believed
in rebirth and emphasized moral responsibility in different ways in contrast to pre-Buddhist
materialistic schools of Indian philosophies.[28][29][30] The materialistic schools of Indian
philosophies, such as Charvaka, are called annihilationist schools because they posited that
death is the end, there is no afterlife, no soul, no rebirth, no karma, and death is that state
where a living being is completely annihilated, dissolved.[31]
Buddha criticized the materialistic annihilationism view that denied rebirth and karma, states
Damien Keown.[28] Such beliefs are inappropriate and dangerous, stated Buddha, because
they encourage moral irresponsibility and material hedonism.[28] Anatta does not mean there
is no afterlife, no rebirth or no fruition of karma, and Buddhism contrasts itself to
annihilationist schools.[28] Buddhism also contrasts itself to other Indian religions that
champion moral responsibility but posit eternalism with their premise that within each human
being there is an essence or eternal soul, and this soul is part of the nature of a living being,
existence and metaphysical reality.[32][33][34]
One with "great self", state the early Buddhist Suttas, has a mind which is neither at the
mercy of outside stimuli nor its own moods, neither scattered nor diffused, but imbued with
self-control, and self-contained towards the single goal of nibbana and a 'Self-like' state.
[39]
This "great self" is not yet an Arahat, because he still does small evil action which leads to
karmic fruition, but he has enough virtue that he does not experience this fruition in hell.[39]
An Arahat, states Harvey, has a fully enlightened state of empirical self, one that lacks the
"sense of both 'I am' and 'this I am'", which are illusions that the Arahat has transcended.
[41]
The Buddhist thought and salvation theory emphasizes a development of self towards a
Selfless state not only with respect to oneself, but recognizing the lack of relational essence
and Self in others, wherein states Martijn van Zomeren, "self is an illusion".[42]
The dispute about "self" and "not-self" doctrines has continued throughout the history of
Buddhism.[51] According to Johannes Bronkhorst, it is possible that "original Buddhism did
not deny the existence of the soul", even though a firm Buddhist tradition has maintained that
the Buddha avoided talking about the soul or even denied its existence. [52] French religion
writer André Migot also states that original Buddhism may not have taught a complete
absence of self, pointing to evidence presented by Buddhist and Pali scholars Jean Przyluski
and Caroline Rhys Davids that early Buddhism generally believed in a self, making Buddhist
schools that admit an existence of a "self" not heretical, but conservative, adhering to ancient
beliefs.[53] While there may be ambivalence on the existence or non-existence of self in early
Buddhist literature, Bronkhorst suggests that these texts clearly indicate that the Buddhist
path of liberation consists not in seeking self-knowledge, but in turning away from what
might erroneously be regarded as the self.[54] This is a reverse position to the Vedic traditions
which recognized the knowledge of the self as "the principal means to achieving
liberation."[54]
In Thai Theravada Buddhism, for example, states Paul Williams, some modern era Buddhist
scholars have claimed that "nirvana is indeed the true Self", while other Thai Buddhists
disagree.[55] For instance, the Dhammakaya Movement in Thailand teaches that it is erroneous
to subsume nirvana under the rubric of anatta (non-self); instead, nirvana is taught to be the
"true self" or dhammakaya.[56] The Dhammakaya Movement teaching that nirvana is atta, or
true self, was criticized as heretical in Buddhism in 1994 by Ven. Payutto, a well-known
scholar monk, who stated that 'Buddha taught nibbana as being non-self".[57][58] The abbot of
one major temple in the Dhammakaya Movement, Luang Por Sermchai of Wat Luang Por
Sodh Dhammakayaram, argues that it tends to be scholars who hold the view of absolute non-
self, rather than Buddhist meditation practitioners. He points to the experiences of prominent
forest hermit monks to support the notion of a "true self".[58] Similar interpretations on the
"true self" were put forth earlier by the 12th Supreme Patriarch of Thailand in 1939.
According to Williams, the Supreme Patriarch's interpretation echoes
the tathāgatagarbha sutras.[59]
Several notable teachers of the Thai Forest Tradition have also described ideas in contrast to
absolute non-self. Ajahn Maha Bua, a well-known meditation master, described the citta
(mind) as being an indestructible reality that does not fall under anattā.[60] He has stated that
not-self is merely a perception that is used to pry one away from infatuation with the concept
of a self, and that once this infatuation is gone the idea of not-self must be dropped as well.
American monk Thanissaro Bhikkhu of the Thai Forest Tradition describes the Buddha's
[61]
Tibetan and Nepalese Buddhist deities Nairatmya and Hevajra in an embrace. Nairatmya is
the goddess of emptiness, and of Anatta (non-self, non-soul, selflessness) realization.[97][98]
The Anatta or Anatman doctrine is extensively discussed in and partly inspires the ritual
practices of the Vajrayana tradition. The Tibetan terms such as bdag med refer to "without a
self, insubstantial, anatman".[99] These discussions, states Jeffrey Hopkins, assert the "non-
existence of a permanent, unitary and independent self", and attribute these ideas to the
Buddha.[100]
The ritual practices in Vajrayana Buddhism employs the concept of deities, to end self-
grasping, and to manifest as a purified, enlightened deity as part of the Vajrayana path to
liberation from rebirths.[101][102][103] One such deity is goddess Nairatmya (literally, non-soul,
non-self).[104][105][106] She symbolizes, states Miranda Shaw, that "self is an illusion" and "all
beings and phenomenal appearances lack an abiding self or essence" in Vajrayana Buddhism.
[97]
6. Anatta – a Difference Between Buddhism and Hinduism
While the Upanishads recognized many things as being not-Self, they felt that a real,
true Self could be found. They held that when it was found, and known to be identical
to Brahman, the basis of everything, this would bring liberation. In the
Buddhist Suttas, though, literally everything is seen is non-Self, even Nirvana. When
this is known, then liberation – Nirvana – is attained by total non-attachment. Thus
both the Upanishads and the Buddhist Suttas see many things as not-Self, but the
Suttas apply it, indeed non-Self, to everything.
—Peter Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices 116]
Both Buddhism and Hinduism distinguish ego-related "I am, this is mine", from their
respective abstract doctrines of "Anatta" and "Atman".[114] This, states Peter Harvey, may
have been an influence of Buddhism on Hinduism.[117]
7. Correspondence in Pyrrhonism
The Greek philosopher Pyrrho traveled to India as part of Alexander the Great's entourage
where he was influenced by the Indian gymnosophists,[122] which inspired him to create the
philosophy of Pyrrhonism. Philologist Christopher Beckwith has demonstrated that Pyrrho
based his philosophy on his translation of the three marks of existence into Greek, and
that adiaphora (not logically differentiable, not clearly definable, negating Aristotle's use of
"diaphora") reflects Pyrrho's understanding of the Buddhist concept of anatta.[123]
Notes
1. ↑ Buddha did not deny a being or a thing, referring it to be a collection of impermanent
interdependent aggregates, but denied that there is a metaphysical self, soul or identity in
anything.[11][12][13]
2. ↑ The term ahamkara is 'ego' in Indian philosophies.[15]
3. ↑ On samsara, rebirth and redeath:
* Paul Williams: "All rebirth is due to karma and is impermanent. Short of attaining
enlightenment, in each rebirth one is born and dies, to be reborn elsewhere in accordance with
the completely impersonal causal nature of one's own karma. The endless cycle of birth,
rebirth, and redeath, is samsara."[33]
* Buswell and Lopez on "rebirth": "An English term that does not have an exact correlate in
Buddhist languages, rendered instead by a range of technical terms, such as the Sanskrit
PUNARJANMAN (lit. "birth again") and PUNABHAVAN (lit. "re-becoming"), and, less
commonly, the related PUNARMRTYU (lit. "redeath")."[34]
See also Perry Schmidt-Leukel (2006) pages 32-34,[35] John J. Makransky (1997) p.27.[36] for
the use of the term "redeath." The term Agatigati or Agati gati (plus a few other terms) is
generally translated as 'rebirth, redeath'; see any Pali-English dictionary; e.g. pages 94-95 of
Rhys Davids & William Stede, where they list five Sutta examples with rebirth and re-death
sense.[37]
4. ↑ Graham Harvey: "Siddhartha Gautama found an end to rebirth in this world of suffering. His
teachings, known as the dharma in Buddhism, can be summarized in the Four Noble
truths."[38] Geoffrey Samuel (2008): "The Four Noble Truths [...] describe the knowledge
needed to set out on the path to liberation from rebirth."[39] See also [40][41][42][33][43][38][web 1][web 2]
The Theravada tradition holds that insight into these four truths is liberating in itself.[44] This
is reflected in the Pali canon.[45] According to Donald Lopez, "The Buddha stated in his first
sermon that when he gained absolute and intuitive knowledge of the four truths, he achieved
complete enlightenment and freedom from future rebirth."[web 1]
The Maha-parinibbana Sutta also refers to this liberation.[web 3] Carol Anderson: "The second
passage where the four truths appear in the Vinaya-pitaka is also found in
the Mahaparinibbana-sutta (D II 90-91). Here, the Buddha explains that it is by not
understanding the four truths that rebirth continues."[46]
On the meaning of moksha as liberation from rebirth, see Patrick Olivelle in the
Encyclopædia Britannica.[web 4]
5. ↑ This is a major difference between the Theravada Buddhists and different Hindu traditions
which assert that nirvana is realizing and being in the state of self (soul, atman) and is
universally applicable. However, both concur that this state is indescribable, cannot be
explained, but can be realized.[69][70]
6. ↑ Wayman and Wayman have disagreed with this view, and they state that
the Tathagatagarbha is neither self nor sentient being, nor soul, nor personality.[102]
References
1. Thomas William Rhys Davids; William Stede (1921). Pali-English Dictionary. Motilal Banarsidass.
pp. 22. ISBN 978-81-208-1144-7. https://books.google.com/books?id=0Guw2CnxiucC.
2. Anatta Buddhism, Encyclopædia Britannica (2013) http://www.britannica.com/topic/anatta
3. Johannes Bronkhorst (2009). Buddhist Teaching in India. Simon and Schuster. pp. 124–125 with
footnotes. ISBN 978-0-86171-566-4. https://books.google.com/books?id=Mhuabeq5-cAC.
4. Peter Harvey (2012). An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices. Cambridge
University Press. pp. 57–62. ISBN 978-0-521-85942-4. https://books.google.com/books?
id=u0sg9LV_rEgC.
5. Peter Harvey (2015). Steven M. Emmanuel. ed. A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy. John Wiley &
Sons. pp. 34–37. ISBN 978-1-119-14466-3. https://books.google.com/books?id=P_lmCgAAQBAJ.
6. Buddha did not deny a being or a thing, referring it to be a collection of impermanent interdependent
aggregates, but denied that there is a metaphysical self, soul, or identity in anything.[11][12][13]
7. Peter Harvey (2012). An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices. Cambridge
University Press. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-521-85942-4. https://books.google.com/books?
id=u0sg9LV_rEgC. , Quote: "Again, anatta does not mean 'egoless', as it is sometimes rendered. The
term 'ego' has a range of meanings in English. The Freudian 'ego' is not the same as the Indian
atman/atta or permanent Self."
8. The term ahamkara is 'ego' in Indian philosophies.[15]
9. Richard Gombrich; Gananath Obeyesekere (1988). Buddhism Transformed: Religious Change in Sri
Lanka. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 246. ISBN 978-81-208-0702-0. https://books.google.com/books?
id=rpN9atSFua0C.
10. N. Ross Reat (1994). Buddhism: A History. Jain Publishing. pp. 32. ISBN 978-0-87573-002-
8. https://books.google.com/books?id=F5WCoeHRnnsC.