The Concept of Non-Self
The term ‘anatta’ might seem at first glance to be a negative term, so as to deny the reality of the self or ‘I’. But first we should understand the actual meaning of the term ‘self’ or ‘I’. It sometimes refers to the physical being or the ‘body’ (For Example, ‘I am thin’) or sometimes to a sense organ (‘I am blind’), sometimes a motor organ (‘I am lame’), sometimes to mental faculty (‘I am dull’), and sometimes consciousness (‘I know’). Which of these should be considered as true meaning of the self or ‘I’? Moreover the term ‘self’ or ‘I’ signifies an entire person. And can the term ‘self’ be used as synonym for the word ‘soul’. In view of these confusions, we must try to understand what the doctrine of ‘anatta’ precisely seeks to deny – and also not deny.
According to Buddhism, what generally is considered as the self is the overall aggregation (say conglomeration) of constantly changing physical and mental constituents (skandhas). All physical or empirical life is impermanent and is in a state of constant flux. All phenomenona exist only in dependence on the conditions of their arising, which are non-eternal, so no true self can be found in them. Ignorance is basically the factor due to which faulty thinking of clinging to concepts and ideas of this ephemeral world.
There are difference of opinions among various interpreters over exact meaning of this doctrine, so it is better to refer to the ancient Pali Canon from which this concept originated. Pali Canon is considered to be the earliest or at least one of the earliest written records of Buddha’s teaching.
As human beings find that everything passes (transient) – and therefore leads to sufferings (dukha) – they develop in themselves and earnest and ardent desire for permanence or immortality and bliss. But not finding anything immortal and blissful in this world, they invent or imagine something lasting in the vague concept of ‘I’, selfhood or individuality, and they cling to that notion. The Buddha calls this clinging or grasping as ‘attavadupadana’ (clinging to I-ness); and the faulty thinking or false belief in some permanent element in every person or individual, which leads to this clinging, is sakkayaditthi (the false view of the psycho-physical body as being real). He also notes that all desires, attachments, hatred, quarrels, conflicts, tensions, stealing, robbing, violence and other wrong-minded decisions have their roots in this mental construct of self-hood.
Buddha explains that each one of the constituents of the human being is transitory and is source of suffering and we should get rid of this erroneous belief and vain clinging to I-ness. The Pali Canon is full of so many references in which Buddha analyses the total psycho-physical aspects of a human being, dividing into five constituents (skandhas): rupa (corporeality), vedana (feelings), sanna (perception), sankharas (dispositions) and vinnana (consciousness). He elucidates that there is nothing permanent and eternally blissful to these psycho-physical aspects of our nature, and establishes the point that it is therefore erroneous to clinging to any idea of a self and to have the conceit of ‘I’ in any form.
The Buddha begins by asking whether corporeality (rupa) is permanent or transient (tam kim mannasi....rupam nichcham va anichcham vati, MN.i, p. 232-233; SN.iii, p.88, 118). On the reply that it is impermanent (anicca), he further asks whether which is impermanent is to be regarded as blissful or sorrowful. To this the natural reply was that it was sorrowful (dukha). In another place, he asks, “Is it proper to look upon which is impermanent, sorrowful and changeable as ‘This is mine; I am this; this is my self?” And the obvious reply comes, “Certainly not.” By applying the same logic with regard to other constituents, the Buddha finally shows the absurdity of the conceit of ‘I’ and ‘mine’. (Samyutta Nikaya, ii, p. 124-126)
Buddha exposes the absurdity of notion of ‘I’ or the self by making it very clear that the conceit of self can only be formed by and through the five constituents of the psychophysical personality described above. He expounds:
All of those ascetics and Brahmins who conceive of the self in various ways regard it as either the five constituents of grasping [together] or any of them [separately]. (Samyutta Nikaya, iii, p. 46)
The way this conceit arises in its various form is explained by Buddha like this:
There is, O monks, an uninstructed worldling who has not seen the Noble One, who has no knowledge of the noble doctrine, no training in the noble doctrine. He regards corporeality as the self, or the self as possessing corporeality, or the corporeality as being within the self or the self as within the corporeality, [and similarly with regard to other five constituents]. Seeing in this manner, he forms the notion, “I am”. (Samyutta Nikaya, iii, p. 46)
Thus, the self or ‘I’ is supoosed to be identical with the five components of the personality – or to possess, or contain or be contained by them. Again Buddha says:
Any kind of corporeality whatever, whether past, future or present, whether internal or external, whether gross or subtle, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near – all corporeality must with objective knowledge be regarded as ‘This is not mine; this is not I; this is not myself. (Samyutta Nikaya, iii, p. 68)
The concept of non-self also originates from Buddha’s teaching of dependent origination or interdependent co-arising, which explains that all the phenomenon of life are interdependent – things ‘arise’ from one another and depend on each other for existence. Buddha says:
When this is, that is.
From the rising of this
comes the arising of that.
When this isn’t, that isn’t.
From the cessation of this
Comes the cessation of that. (Udana 1.3, p.2)
The teaching of dependent origination goes beyond the idea that cause and effect are separate entities, with causes always preceding the effects. As per Buddha, the effect is related to cause as a tree is related to the seed, and that cause is related to effect in the same way that the concept of ‘light’ depends on ‘heavy’. In the ‘Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching ‘, Thich Nhat Hanh says:
According to the teaching of Interdependent Co-Arising, cause and effect co-arise [samutpada] and everything is a result of multiple causes and conditions. The egg is in the chicken, and the chicken is in the egg. Chicken and egg arise in mutual dependence. Neither is independent. Interdependent Co-Arising goes beyond our concepts of space and time. “The one contains the all.” (The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching, p. 221)
Within the concept of dependent origination, we can find no ‘true self’ in all physical and mental phenomena. According to Buddha, clinging to the idea that one has an independent self is based on ignorance, and is the basic cause of being trapped in the cycle of birth and death.
The interdependent conditions of mind and body can lead one either in direction of suffering and liberation. In the circle of dependence, for example, feeling gives rise to craving, and craving gives rise to clinging. If the mind is stilled, however, feeling is stilled, craving ceases and clinging ceases as well.
The esoteric truth behind the concept of dependent origination is not so easy to comprehend. In reply to Ananda who asserted that it was easy to understand, the Buddha said:
Do not say that, Ananda. The teaching of dependent origination is indeed deep and subtle....It is because of not understanding and not penetrating this Dhamma that this generation......does not go beyond transmigration. (Digha Nikaya, ii, p.55)
It is sufficient to say here that the concept of individual self is considered so detrimental to spiritual pursuit that in answer to the question “Which one thing is to be got rid of?” the reply is “The conceit of ‘I’.” (Katamo eko dhammo pahatadabbo ? Asmimano-ayam eko dhammo pahatabbo. DN.iii.p.273.). The Buddha says:
I do not see, O Monks, any form of clinging to I-ness that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, sufferings, agony and despair. (Majjhima Nikaya, i, p. 137)
It is only by shaking off all conceit of ‘I’ in this conscious body as well as in relation to all external objects that one becomes thoroughly free from all clinging and thereby attains unfettered salvation [anuppada vimuttu]. (Samyutta Nikaya,ii, p. 253)
The strongest and most tenuous or subtlest form of clinging is said to be towards the ‘I’, and since clinging is regarded as root cause of suffering, the greatest emphasis is naturally placed on the abandonment of this conceit. It is significant to note that, according to the Buddha, an enlightened person who is endowed with knowledge does not have any conceit of ‘I’ or self.
The Buddha however acknowledges that it is not so easy to disengage oneself from completely from this notion of I-ness. The clinging to ‘I’ is so great that even when one is confronted with the contradictions and the impossibility of identifying a ‘self’ as any of the five constituents of the personality, or ‘groups of grasping’,” one still nurtures a craving for I-ness. This is well indicated in the Khemka Sutta from the Samyutta Nikaya, where the monk Khemka says:
The sutra continues with an analogy to illustrate the nature of this highly persuasive obsession with ‘I’, ego, and self. A filthy cloth, even after being thoroughly washed and made clean by the washerman, may still be left with a slight smell. Then it is explained:
Even so, though a noble disciple has put away the five lower fetters [including the sakkayaditthi, the belief in something permanent in the five aggregates], yet from among the five groups of grasping the subtle remanant of the conceit of the ‘I’, an attachment to the ‘I’, and the lurking tendency to think ‘I am’ is still not removed from him. (Samyutta Nikaya, iii, p.131)
The cloth is then placed in a sweet-scented coffer for the sake of removing the smell which still clings to it. Again, it is pointed out:
Later on, he [the monk] lives contemplating the rise and fall of the five groups of grasping.....In this way, as he lives in the contemplation of the five groups of grasping, that subtle remnant of the conceit of the ‘I’, the attachment to the ‘I’ and the lurking tendency to think, ‘I am’, which were not removed from him, are absolutely removed. (Samyutta Nikaya,iii, p. 131)
While denying the validity of the self or ‘I’, however, people may still use these words without being misled by them. In using them they only conform to convention. The Buddha says:
They are merely popular expressions, popular terms of speech, designations in common practice and usages prevalent in the world, which the Tathagata makes use of without being misled. (DN,i, p.202, SN,i, p.135)
The Buddhist doctrine of non-self makes it clear that the notion of the ‘I’ or the self as a permanent ego is fictitious. Denial of the self, however, should not be taken to mean the denial of the state of non-personal reality that is Nirvana. It is the precisely with a view to realizing this non-personal state, so impossible to characterize, that the Buddha emphasizes the need to disentangle reality from any egoistic association.