1

No Inner Core - Anattá

By Sayadaw U Silananda

Introduction
The following discourse is based on a collection of lectures on the Anattá
doctrine given by Sayadaw U Silananda. Anattá is a Pali word consisting of a
negative prefix, ‘an’ meaning not, plus atta, soul, and is most literally translated
as no-soul. The word atta, however has a wide range of meanings, and some of
those meanings cross over into the fields of psychology philosophy and
everyday terminology as, for example, when atta can mean self, being, ego, and
personality.

Therefore, in this preface, we will examine and elucidate the wide range of
meanings which atta can signify in order to determine exactly what the Buddha
denied when He proclaimed that He teaches anattá, that is, when He denied the
existence of atta. We will examine both Buddhist and non-Buddhist definitions of
the term soul, and we will also examine modern definitions of terms such as ego
and self.

Most writers in the field of religion, when writing about soul or anattá
specifically uses the terms self, ego, being and soul interchangeably, while
psychologists define those terms as totally different entities. If we define atta as
including the terms self ego, personality, and being, we may make the mistake of
claiming that Buddha denied the phenomena of individual differences,
individual personalities, individual kamma and other features of individuality in
people.

But if we say that Buddha denied only the theological entity of a soul, while
leaving intact a psychological entity such as an ego or self, then we are also
mistaken. The resolution of this dilemma lies in the fact that we must deal with
two levels of reality simultaneously, the ultimate level and the conventional
level.

In the absolute sense, the anattá doctrine denies any and all psychological
entities or agents inside the person. In the absolute sense, all phenomena,
including what is called a person, are composed of elements, forces, and a stream
of successive states.
 2

The Buddha organized these phenomena into conceptual groups, known as

khandhas (aggregates), and they are: (1) material processes, also known as bodily
form, corporeality or matter; (2) feeling; (3) perception; (4) mental formations;
and (S) consciousness. Most important ý when all mental and physical
phenomena are analyzed into those elements, no residual entity, such as a soul,
self, or ego, can be found. In short, there are actions executed by these groups,
but no actor The workings of these groups of forces and elements appear to us as
an ego or personality but in reality the ego or self or agent of the actions has only
an illusory existence.

However on the conventional level, the workings of these forces, elements, and
states are organized by causal laws, and, although they in no way constitute any
extra-phenomenal self or soul, they do produce a human individual, a person - if
we want to call a certain combination of material and mental processes a person.

This complex combination of material and mental processes is dependent

entirely on previous processes, especially the continuity of kamma, which is the
process of ethical volitions and the results of those volitions. Thus individual
differences are accounted for even though the self or ego or personality is, in the
ultimate sense, denied.

An individual may be an angry, hot-tempered person, for example, because in

the past he or she has performed actions, which leave conditions for traits, which
are kamma results, to arise in the present. But this happens because kamma
leaves a potential for those traits of anger and ill will to arise, not because any
kind of self of the person is continuing. Actually the human individual does not
remain the same for two consecutive moments; everything is a succession of
forces and elements, and there is nothing substantial.

Therefore, on the conventional level, we may say that individual differences have
an illusory existence. Common everyday conceptions, such as ego, self, and
personality seem to be very real, obvious, and well-defined by psychologists and
laymen alike, but they are, on the absolute level and in the eyes of those who
have achieved enlightenment, illusory.

Another way to approach Buddhist psychology is to examine the very complex

and technical psychological system known as Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma
is, in the words of Narada Maha Thera, "a psychology without a psyche.
Abhidhamma teaches that ultimate reality consists of four elementary
constituents.

One, Nibbána (in Sanskrit, Nirvana) is unconditioned, and the other three, citta,
cetasika, and rupa - consciousness, mental factors, and matter respectively - are
conditioned. These elementary constituents, called Dhammas, alone possess
ultimate reality. The familiar world of objects and persons, and the interior world
 3

of ego and self are only conceptual constructs created by the mind out of the
elemental Dhammas.

Abhidhamma thus restricts itself to terms that are valid from the standpoint of
ultimate realities: it describes reality in terms of ultimate truth. Thus it describes
Dhammas, their characteristics, their functions, and their relations.  All
conceptual entities such as self or being or person, are resolved into their
ultimate, into bare mental and material phenomena, which are impermanent,
conditioned, dependently arisen, and empty of any abiding self or substance.

Consciousness, for example, which seems like one continual flow, is described as
a succession of discrete evanescent mental events, the cittas, and a complex set of
mental factors, the cetasikas, which perform more specialized tasks in the act of
consciousness. There is no self, soul, or any kind of agent inside a person
involved in this process.

Now let us examine some of the terms related to atta that we find in various
sources. The definition of Soul, Spirit given in the Abingdon Dictionary of Living
Religions is as follows: "That which gives life to any animate thing; or the inner
essential, or non-corporeal part or dimension of any animate thing; or a non-
corporeal but animate substance or entity; or a non-corporeal but individuated
personal being."

Another definition of soul comes from Richard Kennedy in The international

Dictionary of Religion: "Many religions teach that man is composed of a physical
body, which does not survive death, and an eternal, invisible core which is the
true self or soul.

Donald Watson, in A Dictionary of Mind and Spirit, writes, in the entry Soul/: "It
goes by many names: jiva (Jain), Atman (Hindu), Monad, Ego, Self, Higher Self,
Over-self, elusive self, psyche, or even Mind." In these non-Buddhist definitions
of soul, we see many terms inter-changed, such as core, ego, and essence.
Sayadaw U Silananda will elaborate on these meanings in his lectures.

Two Buddhist definitions of atta are here given. The first is from Nyanatiloka’s
Buddhist Dictionary. "...Anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as
a self existing, real ego-entity soul or any other abiding substance. " In The Truth
of Anattá, Dc G.P Malalasekera states that atta is "self, as a subtle metaphysical
entity soul."’ These definitions also cover a wide range of meanings of the term
atta and of the usual translations of atra as soul and self.

The above definitions of atta, soul, sometimes cross over into the realm of
psychology when the authors define soul as self, ego, psyche or mind. Did the
Buddha deny that such conceptions as ego and self are real when He proclaimed
the anattá doctrine? Once again, the answer depends on whether we are
 4

speaking of absolute or conventional reality. But first we will examine some

definitions from psychology to see what was actually denied both implicitly and
explicitly by the anattá doctrine.

According to the Dictionary of Psychology self is: "(1) the individual as a

conscious being. (2) The ego or I. (3) the personality or organization of traits."
The definition of ego is "the self, particularly the individual’s conception of
himself." Personality is defined as "the dynamic organization within the
individual of those psycho physical systems that determine his characteristic
behavior and thought."

Another definition of personality is "that which permits a prediction of what a

person will do in a given situation."" These psychological terms correspond to
some of the terms used in Buddhism to deal with the conventional life of sentient
beings. They have a useful purpose as labels, but in the ultimate sense, these
labels are, as we shall see, mere designations, which have only an illusory reality,

In Pali, we have the terms satta, puggala, jiva and atta to describe the
conventional psychology of beings. Satta, according to Nyanatiloka, means,
"living being." Puggala means "individual, person, as well as the synonyms:
personality individuality being (satta), self (atta). Tiva is "life, vital principle,
individual soul."

Some uses of atta also fall within the realm of psychology Atta can mean,
according to Dr. Malalasekera, "one’s self or one’s own, e.g. attahitaya patipanno
no parahitaya (acting in one’s own interest, not in the interest of others) or attana
va akatam sadhu (what is done by one’s own self is good)."

Atta can also mean "one’s own person, the personality including body and mind,
e.g. in atrabhava (life), attapatilabha (birth in some form of life)."

Pali has some terms, which correspond to the psychological notions of traits. For
example, the concept of nature or character is called carita. Using this term, we
can speak of different types of persons. For example. we may describe a person
as raga-carita (greedy-natured), dosa-carica (hateful-natured), moha-carita (dull-
natured), saddha-carita (faithful-natured), buddhi-carita (intelligent-natured),
and vitakka-carita (ruminating-natured) - six types altogether Different people
are at different stages of development, according to their kamma. Buddhism
does not deny that such conceptions of individuality have validity but they have
validity only in the conventional sense.

Dr Malalasekera writes: "Buddhism has no objection to the use of the words atta,
or satta, or puggala to indicate the individual as a whole, or to distinguish one
person from another where such distinction is necessary, especially as regards
 5

such things as memory and kamma which are private and personal and where it
is necessary to recognize the existence of separate lines of continuity (santana).

But, even so, these terms should be treated only as labels, binding-conceptions
and conventions in language, assisting economy in thought and word and
nothing more. Even the Buddha uses them sometimes: ‘these are worldly usages
worldly terms of communication, worldly descriptions, by which a Tathágata
communicates without misapprehending them".

Nyanatiloka adds to this idea when writing about the term satta: "This term, just
like atta, puggala, jiva and all other terms denoting ‘ego-entity,’ is to be
considered as a merely conventional term (vohara-vacana), not possessing any
reality value.

All of the various conceptions of psychology and religion regarding a self or soul
of any kind were indeed denied existence in the ultimate sense by the Buddha.
But we may use terms such as self and ego to describe a particular arrangement
of the five khandhas (aggregates), which give the illusory appearance of an
individual. As Sister Vajira, an Arahant at the time of the Buddha, said:

When all constituent parts are there,

the designation ‘cart’ is used;
just so, where the five groups exist,
of ‘living being’ do we speak.

In conclusion, the Sayadaw U Silananda has given us lectures on the anattá

doctrine in which he uses terms such as soul and self interchangeably. This is
because the doctrine of anattá was taught by the Buddha from the point of view
of the Fully Enlightened One, a view which saw that all things are anattá. It is
with this wisdom that the lectures are given.
 

Impermanence, Suffering and No-

Soul
The doctrine of anattá is very important to Buddhists. No realization of Truth can
occur without the knowledge of the anattá (no-soul) nature of things. To realize
Truth, one must practice meditation, and during meditation, the knowledge of
anattá must arise. One needs the knowledge of anicca, dukkha, and anattá, that
is, the knowledge of impermanence, of suffering, and of the no-soul nature of
things. Until one experiences these characteristics in meditation, not just
intellectually, but directly, one cannot make progress. Vipassana (Insight)
meditation deals directly with these characteristics.
 6

These characteristics run through all stages of vipassana. I will discuss Vipassana
later, but first we must explain what conceals the three characteristics from
perception during meditation.

Impermanence is concealed by continuity If one looks at a candle flame, one may

think that it is the same flame from moment to moment. Actually, the flame is
constantly disappearing and arising again every second. We have the illusion of
one flame because of the idea and appearance of continuity.

The nature of suffering is concealed by changing into different postures. When

we are sitting and feel some pain, we change posture and the pain goes away.
Actually we are changing postures constantly at every moment of our lives, but
this is not apparent to us. The moment a tiny unpleasant sensation is felt, we
change postures. The characteristic of no-soul is concealed by the perception that
things are compact and solid. We look at things and at ourselves as solid,
compact things. Until we can break through the false perception that we are
compact, we will not see the no-soul nature of things.

That is why there are meditational practices in which the four elements, earth,
water, fire, and air are contemplated. Actually the primary Qualities of those
elements are contemplated: earth is characterized by hardness or softness, water
by fluidity or cohesion, fire by heat, and air by extending or supporting. If we
can have the insight into phenomena as being composed of elements and their
characteristics, then the idea of compactness will be weakened.

We think that we are substantial, but if we have insight into our real nature, the
nature of being composed of nama and rupa, or more precisely of elements and
forces mutually dependent and interacting with each other then the idea of a
coherent, abiding, substantial self is weakened, and nothing we can call a self is
found.

The anattá doctrine is of primary importance to a Buddhist. In fact, anattá can

only be understood when there is a Buddha or a Buddha’s teaching in the world.
No one but a Buddha can penetrate into the anattá nature of things because only
through Vipassana meditation, discovered by Buddha, can insight into anattá be
realized. Even though great and profound thinkers are around, they still cannot
penetrate into anattá, and other kinds of meditation, such as Samatha
(Tranquility), may give you psychic powers or higher states of consciousness, but
they cannot lead you to the insight into anattá.

As I mentioned earlier, the belief in a soul was described by the Buddha as a

major cause of suffering. The belief in atta of any kind, whether belief in a
personal ego or in a spiritual self, is the cause of all dukkhas in this rounds of
rebirth; the belief in atta is the root of greed, hatred, and delusion. Atheists may
not believe in a spiritual soul, but they serve the desires of their personal ego and
 7

thus may commit deeds of greed, hatred, and delusion. The idea of atta is very
hard to conquer but still we must try because realization of anattá is the way to
deliverance, while the persistence of the idea of atta is a major cause of misery.

One cannot over-emphasize the importance of anattá, as Nyanatiloka explains:

"Whosoever has not penetrated this impersonality of all existence, and does not
comprehend that in reality there exists only this continually self consuming
process of arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena, and that there is
no separate ego-entity within or without this process, he will not be able to
understand Buddhism, i.e., the teaching of the Four Noble Truths... in the right
light.

He will think that it is his ego, his personality, that experiences suffering, his
personality that performs good and evil actions and will be reborn according to
these actions, his personality that will enter Nibbána, his personality that walks
on the Eightfold Path."

The words of Nyanatiloka bring up a very important point often asked about
Nibbána: In the absence of a soul, who or what is it that enters Nibbána? This is a
difficult subject. From what has been said so far in this lecture, we can certainly
say that there is no atta or self, which realizes Nibbána What, realizes Nibbána is
insight-wisdom, Vipassana-paññá. It is not the property of a personal or
universal self, but is rather a power developed ‘ through meditative penetration
of phenomena.

Yet another even more difficult Question is: What happens to a Tathágata (here
in the sense of one who has realized Nibbána) after death? Once again, Buddha
gave his answer without recourse to any kind of spiritual entity such as atta.
Buddha essentially replied that no words could possibly describe what happens
to a Tathágata after death: "A Tathágata released from what is called body etc., is
profound, immeasurable, hard to fathom, like the great ocean.

It does not fit the case to say that he is reborn or not reborn, or reborn and not
reborn, or neither reborn nor not reborn." Then He goes on to say, after being
Questioned further: "Profound is this doctrine, hard to see, hard to comprehend,
calm, excellent, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, intelligible only to the
wise.

Thus Nibbána, the Absolute Noble Truth, the extinction of all continuity and
becoming, the "Unborn, Un-originated, Uncreated, Unformed". Reality is
affirmed without reference to atta. Likewise, the Arahant who realizes Nibbána
does so by means of a flash of insight, which destroys forever all illusions of the
existence of atta. I will conclude with some well-written words from
Nyanatiloka:
 8

One cannot too often and too emphatically stress the fact that not only for the
actual realization of the goal of Nibbána, but also for a theoretical understanding
of it, it is an indispensable preliminary condition to grasp fully the truth of
anattá, the ego-less-ness and insubstantiality of all forms of existence. Without
such an understanding, one will necessarily misconceive Nibbána - according to
one’s either materialistic or metaphysical leanings - either as annihilation of an
ego, or an eternal state of existence into which an ego or self enters or with which
it merges. Hence it is said:

"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;

The deed is, but no doer of the deed is there;
Nibbána is, but not the man who enters it;
The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."

Direct Experience of Anattá

The anattá doctrine is extremely difficult to comprehend. One can speculate or
ponder about it - that is one kind of knowledge, acquired by listening to a lecture
or by reading. One may also ponder over it more deeply in contemplation. But
one can only really penetrate into it during vipassana meditation.

When yogis practice, they keep themselves aware of everything. When they see
something, there are two things: the mind which sees and the object seen, apart
from these, there is nothing. More specifically, seeing is a process, which
depends on four things: the eye, the visible object, light, and attention to the
object. If one of these conditions is lacking, no seeing occurs. If one does not have
eyes, no atta can make one see. Only when all conditions are met does seeing
consciousness arise. No agent like atta is a part of this.

Likewise, when yogis note themselves thinking during meditation, they note
"thinking, thinking, thinking," and they find only thinking and the mind which
notes it - they do not find a self or ego or atta. They do not find that "I am
thinking," unless they add this idea as an afterthought. They really only find that
thinking is occurring. In this process, yogis can see the impermanence of mind
and thought: one thought comes, then goes; another thought comes and goes,
and this goes on and on.

A new thought comes every moment, arising and disappearing. They directly see
the impermanence of thought. They can also notice the impermanence of
material things, such as physical pain, by noting the arising and disappearing of
the pain in the body. They can see that all things are oppressed by rise and fall,
by arising and disappearing. This oppression of phenomena by arising and
disappearing is the characteristic of dukkha (suffering).
 9

Unwisely, we desire for things to be permanent, yet we realize that we have no

power to make impermanent things permanent; we realize that we have no
control or authority over things. No inner core, no atta, can be found in any
observed phenomena. Yogis can discover this anattá nature of things in
Vipassana meditation, because gradually they bring awareness and
concentration to a high degree and then they have penetrative knowledge into
the true nature of mind and body.

Analysis of the Discourse on the

Characteristic of No-Soul
Let us now study in more detail the Sutra, which teaches the doctrine of anattá,
known as the Anattalakkhana Sutta, "The Discourse on the Characteristic of No-
Soul." (Read another version of this Sutta at the bottom of this text. BIONA
ED.) This was the second sermon of the Buddha.

At the end of the first sermon, the Venerable Kondanna became a Sotápanna (a
person at the first stage of enlightenment) and then, according to the
Commentaries, for example, the Commentary on Vinaya, the other four disciples
became Sotápanna’s, one on each of the four following days.  On the first day
after the full-moon day in July, the monk Vappa became a Sotápanna; on the
second day, Bhaddiya; on the third day, Mahanama; and on the fourth day,
Assaji. After they became Sotápanna’s, they all asked Buddha for ordination.
Buddha ordained each of them by calling to them, "Come monks." On the fifth
day after the full-moon day, the Buddha assembled them and preached to them
this discourse on no-soul.

This discourse’ is even shorter than the first sermon on the Four Noble Truths. It
was delivered at the Deer Park at Benares. Buddha called the disciples by saying,
"Monks," and they replied, "Venerable Sir" and then the Buddha started.

We can divide the Sutta into five parts. In the first part, Buddha says that the five
aggregates are not atta, not self or soul. In the second section, Buddha asks the
monks if the five aggregates are permanent or impermanent, pleasurable or
painful, and then He arrives at the conclusion that the nature of the five
aggregates is anattá. In the third section, Buddha teaches that the five aggregates
should not be taken as a soul or self or as belonging to one-self. In the fourth
section, Buddha explains briefly the progress of Vipassana meditation.

The last section records that all five monks had attained the stage of Arahant. By
the end of the Sutta, all five monks became Arahants, which is the highest stage
of enlightenment.
 10

Buddha says, "Bhikkhus, form is anattá, (form is not soul or self. Were form soul,
then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: ‘Let my
form be thus; let my form be not thus.’ And since form is not soul, so it leads to
affliction, and none can have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form be not
thus."’ Here the Pali word rupa is translated as form.  The word forms here used
in the sense of material properties or just matter.

The reader may recall that the first of the five aggregates is form or corporeality
But form cannot be atta because it is subject to affliction. Atta (self or soul) must
have the meaning, which we discussed earlier: that of vasavattana, something,
which has the power and autonomy to change the nature of things. No one likes
pain and affliction in the body, but it cannot be changed. If form were atta,
people could abolish pain, disease, and ugliness by merely wishing. But there is
no core or director or soul inside or outside of people, which has the power to
accomplish such actions.

Buddha considered the second aggregate and says: "Feeling is not soul.  Were
feeling soul, then this feeling would not lead to affliction, and one could have it
of feeling: ‘Let my feeling be thus; let my feeling be not thus."’ Then Buddha
takes the third, fourth, and fifth aggregates:

"Perception is not soul... Mental formations are not soul.... Consciousness is not
soul. Were consciousness soul, then this consciousness would not lead to
affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus;
let my consciousness be not thus."’ Consciousness cannot be atta because it is not
under our control. Consciousness is unavoidably subject to afflictions - to
sorrow, depression, and frustration. We cannot avoid being conscious of ugly
sights, sounds, and sensations in the world, although we would like to arrange
coming into contact with pleasant sensual objects only.

Likewise, in meditation, we would like to be conscious only of the meditation

object, and we would like to achieve stillness of mind and concentration, but this
is not easy, and we cannot will it. If consciousness were atta, we could will our
consciousness to be still and concentrated, and then we could proceed to the
higher states of mind - perhaps it would only take one day to advance to the
higher stages of meditation!

But in all cases, consciousness arises completely determined by circumstances

and conditions, conditions that are not under our control. Therefore,
consciousness cannot be atta. In the second section of the Sutta, Buddha asks the
monks some Questions, which they answer. Buddha says: "Bhikkhus, how do
you conceive it: Is form permanent or impermanent!" Since they were already
sotápanna’s, they had already seen that the five aggregates are impermanent,
suffering, and no-soul, so they answered, "Impermanent, Venerable Sir." Now
 11

Buddha asks, "Is what is impermanent, painful, and subject to change fit to be
regarded thus:

‘This is mine. This is I. This is my soul?"’ They answered, "No, Venerable Sir"
Form is impermanent because it disappears. It comes into being and then
vanishes. It has a beginning and an end. The monks had already realized by
means of Vipassana knowledge that form is impermanent. They had already
seen the three marks of impermanence, which are the three phases of existence:
arising, continuation, and dissolution.

Another way to state this process is to call it non-existence after having been in
existence, in Pali - hutva abhavato. Buddha then proceeds to explain that
whatever is impermanent is also painful. The mark of pain (dukkha) is constant
oppression by rise and fall, by arising and dissolution. This can be seen during
meditation, when yogis take thoughts as objects and look at them closely. They
see that the moment a thought is observed as an object, it disappears, and
another thought takes its place.

As meditators observe very closely with concentration, they see all objects in the
mind arising and disappearing constantly, and this is seen as a kind of
oppression by arising and disappearing. Phenomena are called oppressed by rise
and fall because nothing is ever at peace; everything is menaced by an endless
flux. In this sense, whatever is impermanent is dukkha.

Dukkha means more than just painful.  Dukkha also comes from our desire for
permanence. Dukkha means difficult to bear mentally and physically, and thus
we call the impermanence of all phenomena dukkha (suffering).

In the third part of Buddha’s Questioning, He asks, "Is that which is

impermanent and painful fit to be called ‘mine, I, my self or soul?"" Buddha is
here leading the monks to the discovery of anattá. Is something that is
disappearing fit to be called atta? No. From anicca (impermanence) to dukkha
(suffering, and finally to anattá (no-soul) the monks are led.

Let us review again the processes, which hide impermanence, suffering, and no-
soul. We, as unenlightened people, fail to see impermanence because we do not
see the arising and disappearing of things. We are tricked by continuity, which
hides the nature of impermanence. We look at things or at consciousness and see
them as continuous.

In order to see impermanence, we must observe closely the arising and

disappearing of phenomena. We must penetrate, by means of concentration and
insight developed in meditation, through the impression of continuity, which
acts as a cover of impermanence.  Let us think of a ring of fire. Someone has a
torch and twirls it to create an impression of a circle of fire. But we know that
 12

there is really no ring of fire; it is just the impressions of individual positions of

the fire at different places and at different times. But our mind takes the
impressions as something continuous; rather, our mind connects the impressions
and we deceive ourselves.

If we could take a moving picture of the process and watch it at a slow speed, we
would see the individual parts of the sequence of the apparent ring of fire. We
would only see light at different places and not a circle. If we cannot pinpoint the
components of things in order to see them arising and disappearing, we will
continue to see things as whole entities.

Let us note here that impermanence in this context means momentary

impermanence. If we drop a cup, which breaks, we say that it is impermanent.
Or if a person dies, we say that the person is impermanent. These examples of
impermanence are easy to see.

But when we use that term in the context of Vipassana meditation, we mean the
constant arising and disappearing of phenomena, and this can only be observed
during Vipassana meditation. Similarly by dukkha, we do not mean ordinary
pain or illness. We mean the constant oppression by arising and disappearing,
and this can also be seen only in Vipassana meditation, even in phenomena we
call pleasurable.

Please recall that dukkha is concealed by postures; more specifically, there is

always dukkha in the body but we conceal that pain by changing postures.  That
is why we instruct meditators to sit very still while they are meditating. If yogis
avoid changing postures often, they will achieve mindfulness and concentration,
and they will observe the nature of dukkha directly.  Anattá, the no-soul nature
of all things, is concealed by compactness. We usually see things as solid and
compact. We have to train our minds through Vipassana meditation to look at
and analyze that compactness more closely.

Just as a scientist uses a microscope to look at things in a laboratory so yogis

must use concentration in Vipassana meditation to penetrate into the
unsubstantial, anattá nature of things. We must try to see through the apparently
solid mass of mental and physical phenomena.

Regarding material things, we try to analyze and observe them as earth, water
fire, air and other material properties. Regarding mental phenomena, we try to
see that, for example, one phenomena is contact, another feeling, and another
perception, although these may have been experienced very rapidly as only one
mental event. Both mental and physical phenomena are composed of only
elements and forces, and thus have the nature of being anattá (unsubstantial).
That is why we must try to observe everything very slowly in meditation in
order to see that phenomena are not held together with a core, an atta.
 13

For example, all mental states and material properties have their own functions.
Contact has one function, feeling another, and perception still another. If we see
these mental phenomena as one connected whole, we fail to see them as parts
with specific functions, and we fail to see them as void of a central core, atta.

These mental states actually have different ways of taking objects and
responding to them. Lobha (attachment) has one kind of response; dosa (hatred)
another. We must see the individual differences of these mental states. We need
to analyze and observe deeply to see that mind and matter have individual
functions and responses. On superficial observation and analysis, everything
seems to be compact, whole, and substantial. All of us think that a book is very
solid, but if we could look at this book under a microscope, it would appear full
of holes, with empty spaces, like a sieve.

Vipassana is like using a microscope to see that all things are only elements and
forces, which are not unified by any kind of core, by any kind of atta.  In the third
section of the Sutta, Buddha states that: ‘Any kind of form, whether past, future,
or presently arisen; whether in oneself or external; whether inferior or superior;
whether far or near; must with right understanding be regarded thus:

‘This is not mine; this is not I; this is not my self or soul."’ There can be different
kinds of form, different kinds of matter, but none of them can be regarded as atta
or as having atta. The same is true for feelings, perceptions, mental formations,
and consciousness.

Next, Buddha explains to the monks the progress made by a meditator:

"When a noble follower who has heard the truth sees thus, he finds estrangement
in form, finds estrangement in feeling, finds estrangement in perceptions...  in
mental formations... in consciousness." This means that the meditator becomes
weary of form, dispassionate about matter. The meditator realizes that the
aggregates are impermanent, suffering, and no-soul.

"When he finds estrangement, passion fades out." Buddha is here describing

stages of Vipassana meditation in a very brief form with many stages left, out.
The disciple wants to be free from the five aggregates, so this person makes more
effort. The meditator then arrives at equanimity about formations. When Buddha
uses the phrase "finds estrangement," He is referring to all of the stages of
Vipassana up to the very highest stage. After finding estrangement, passion
fades out in one moment, the moment of enlightenment. That is the moment
known as Path consciousness when some defilement of the mind are eradicated.

Buddha continues, "With the fading of passion, he is liberated." This means that
the meditator has reached the two or three moments after Path consciousness
known as Fruition consciousness.
 14

"When liberated there is knowledge that he is liberated." Here the meditator

reflects on the Path, on Fruition, on Nibbána, on defilements destroyed, and on
defilements that are remaining.

He understands: ‘Birth is exhausted. The holy life has been lived out. What need
to be done is done. Of this there is no more beyond."’ Like Buddha when He
became enlightened, the meditator says similar words.  The discourse ends: "This
is what the Blessed One said. The Bhikkhus were glad, and they approved His
words. Now during this utterance, the hearts of the Bhikkhus of the group of five
were liberated from taints, through clinging no more." This means that they had
become Arahants. By under-standing the doctrine of anattá, they were now free
of all fetters, defilements, and impurities. They had reached the highest state of
enlightenment. They had realized Nibbána and were free from all rebirth.
 

Understanding Anattá
The anattá doctrine is one of the most important teachings of Buddhism. It is the
most distinctive feature of Buddhism, for as many scholars have recognized, it
makes Buddhism different from all other religions. Scholars write that all other
religions accept the existence of some kind of spiritual, metaphysical, or
psychological entity or agent or being inside and, in some cases, simultaneously
outside of sentient beings. That is, most religions accept the existence of a soul or
self.

Donald Watson writes: "Of the world’s major religions, only Buddhism denies or
is agnostic about the existence of a soul."

Another scholar Richard Kennedy writes: "According to Christianity, Islam, and

Judaism, each soul will be judged at the end of the world.... It is the soul, which
will determine whether the individual is punished by hell or rewarded by eternal
life in heaven.... Buddhism teaches that there is no such thing as a soul or true,
permanent self."

The Encyclopedia Americana writes: "In Buddhism there is no perduring or

surviving self such as the atman. Meditation leads to the awareness that the idea
of self, or atman, is mere illusion."

In A Dictionary of Comparative Religion, the teaching of the existence of the soul

is traced through every major religion throughout history: primitive animistic,
Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Hebrew, Greek religion in Homeric, Orphic,
Pythagorean, and Platonic versions; Hindu, Zoroastrian, Chinese, Muslim,
Japanese, and Christian. But, as the writers state, "Buddhism, in its classic form,
rejected the Hindu concept of atman as the essential, immortal self...."
 15

As we can see, Buddhism is the only major religion that denies the existence of a
metaphysical entity which is usually called a self or soul.

Buddhism is divided into two major schools, Theravada and Mahayana, which
have, in some cases, major differences. But both schools adhere to the anattá
doctrine. H. von Glasenapp writes: "The negation of an imperishable Atman is
the common characteristic of all dogmatic systems of the Lesser as well as the
Great Vehicle (meaning here Theravada and Mahayana, respectively], and, there
is, therefore, no reason to assume that Buddhist tradition which is in complete
agreement on this point has deviated from the Buddha’s original teaching."

Although the anattá doctrine is so important, so distinctive, and supposedly so

universally accepted by Buddhists, it is still the most misunderstood, the most
misinterpreted, and the most distorted of all the teachings of the Buddha.

Some scholars who have written on Buddhism had a great respect for the
Buddha, liked His teachings, revered Him, and honored Him, but they could not
imagine that such a profound thinker had actually denied the existence of a soul. 
Consequently they have tried to find apparent loopholes in the teachings
through which they have tried to insert the affirmation of atta by the Buddha.

For example, two modern scholars, Ánanda K. Coomaraswamy and I B. Horner

in their book, The Living Thoughts of Gotama the Buddha, have devoted much
of the book to the idea that Buddha taught a doctrine of two selves, the great Self,
spelled with an upper case ‘S’ to signify the spiritual self or soul, and a small self,
the personal ego, spelled with a lower case ‘s’.

They claim that Buddha denied only this personal self or ego when He spoke of
anattá. These scholars base their ideas on mistranslation of Pali terms, and later
in these lectures I will devote considerable time to analyzing the Pali passages,
which they have mistranslated.

Another scholar John Blofeld, also claims that Buddha was really teaching a
doctrine of two selves, one true Self or Soul, and one false personal self or ego.
Notice in the following quote how he must clarify that the Zen doctrine of Self or
One Mind is not in the reality the Atman of the Hindu Brahmins:-

The doctrine of Atman has always been the center of Buddhist controversy.
There is no doubt that Gautama Buddha made it one of the central points of his
teaching, but the interpretations of it are various. The Theravadins interpret it
not only as "no self," but also as "no Self," thereby denying man both an ego and
all participation in something of the nature of Universal Spirit or the One Mind.
The Mahayanists accept the interpretation of "ego-less-ness," holding that the real
"Self" is none other than that indescribable "non-entity," the One Mind;
something far less of an "entity" than the Ãtman of the Brahmins.
 16

The "Universal Spirit," "One Mind," and "Self" which Blofeld finds within the
anattá doctrine are really an Atman, an atta, of a finer substance, "less of an entity
" as he says, but nevertheless an Atman. These ideas of atta are therefore in
conflict with the anattá doctrine of the Buddha. As mentioned before, most
Mahayanists accept the doctrine of anattá, but later schools of Mahayana, such as
the Chinese Zen of which Blofeld writes, may have drifted into a soul-like theory.

The controversy over the anattá doctrine seems to be based on a deep fear of the
denial of the existence of a soul. People are often very attached to their lives, so
they like to believe that there exists something everlasting, eternal, and
permanent inside them. When someone comes along and tells them that there is
nothing permanent in them, nothing by which they will continue eternally such
as a soul, they may become frightened. They wonder what will become of them
in the future - they have the fear of extinction.

Buddha understood this, as we can see in the story of Vacchagotta, who, like
many other people, was frightened and confused by the anattá doctrine.
Vacchagotta was an ascetic who once went to the Buddha to discuss some
important matters. He asked the Buddha, "Is there atta?" Buddha remained  
silent. Vacchagotta then asked, "Is there no atta" But Buddha again remained
silent.  After Vacchagotta went away Buddha explained to Ánanda why he had
remained silent.

Buddha explained that He knew that Vacchagotta was very confused in his
thinking about atta, and that if He were to respond that there does exist atta then
He would be expounding the eternalist view the eternal soul theory with which
He did not agree. But if He were to say that atta did not exist, then Vacchagotta
might think that He was expounding the annihilationist view, the view that a
person is nothing but a psychophysical organism which will be completely
annihilated at death.

Since this latter view denies kamma, rebirth, and dependent origination, Buddha
did not agree with this. Buddha teaches, in fact, that people are reborn with
patisandhi, "re-linking consciousness," a rebirth consciousness which does not
transmigrate from the previous existence, but which comes into existence by
means of conditions included in the previous existences, conditions such as
kamma.

Thus a reborn person is not the same as the one who has died, nor is the reborn
person entirely different from the one who has died. Most importantly no
metaphysical entity no soul, and no kind of spiritual self continues from one
existence to another in Buddha’s teaching.

But this teaching was too difficult for Vacchagotta, and Buddha wanted to wait
for a time when Vacchagotta would mature in intellect. Buddha was not a
 17

computer who gave automatic answers to every Question. He taught according

to the circumstances and temperaments of the people, for their benefit.

As it happened, Vacchagotta advanced spiritually through Vipassana

meditation, which allowed him to realize the suffering, impermanent, and no-
soul nature of all things, and he later became an Arahant. Unfortunately, this
story is used by some scholars to try to prove that Buddha did not really deny
the existence of atta.

Let us now examine the ideas contained in the term atta, Before Buddha
appeared in this world, Brahmanism, which was later to be called Hinduism,
prevailed in India. Brahmanism teaches the doctrine of the existence of atta (in
Sanskrit, atman), which is usually translated as soul or self. When Buddha
appeared, He claimed that there is no atman. This doctrine was so important that
Buddha proclaimed it only five days after His first sermon, the sermon on the
Four Noble Truths.

The five disciples who heard that first sermon became "stream-winners"
(Sotápanna’s) persons who have attained the first stage of enlightenment. Five
days later, Buddha assembled the five disciples and taught them the anattá
doctrine. By the end of that Sutta, all five became Arahants, persons who have
attained the highest stage of enlightenment.

What is this atta, which the Buddha negated? The word anattá is a combination
of two words: an (< na) and atta. An means not or no, and atta is usually
translated as soul or self (sometimes with upper case ‘S’ to signify a spiritual
entity). But atta has a wide range of meanings, which we will now examine.
These terms are discussed in two famous books of Hindu scripture, the
Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. Many views of atta are found in the
Buddhist Brahmajala Sutta, which I will discuss later.

Atta is the inner core of anything. The inner core of a tree is the hardest part and
thus the core of something can imply permanency The core may also imply the
best part of something, the part which is the essence, the part which is pure, real,
beautiful, and enduring. The idea of atta as the core of things is found in the
Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka Upanishads.’

Another implication of atta is that of authority. Authority is the ability to make

others follow orders. If anything is to be called atta, it must have the power to
exercise authority over the nature of things, as stated in the Kena Upanishad. In
addition, atta is not subject to any other authority: it is the highest authority
(sayamvasi) one who is his own master. It is like a lord or owner (sami). Atta is
the lord of ourselves. It is distinct from ourselves and abides in ourselves.
 18

It is the dweller (nivasi), which is not part of the five aggregates. Atta is also the
agent of action, a doer (karaka) and it is atta, which actually does everything,
good, or bad. Atta is that by which we act, that by which we enjoy or suffer In
ignorance we identify ourselves with the body and ego, forgetting that we are
really atta.

When we do something, it is really at the command of atta, but we ignorantly

believe that we as individuals actually control our lives.  Atta is thus a director
and an experiencer."

Another meaning of atta is that of soul, a spiritual entity inside of all people. The
soul, called atman in Hindu scriptures, is the individual self, and it is identical
with the Universal Self, the Supreme Being, called Brahman.  Atman resides in
everyone and in every living being. Like Brahman, atman is eternal. When the
body dies, atman moves to another body and makes that body its new home.

In this way it moves from one body to another discarding the worn-out body and
taking a new one. Liberation is, according to Hinduism, the realization that
atman is identical with the Universal Atman or Brahman, or that the individual
atman is part of Brahman’.

Atman is eternal - no one can kill or wound atman. In the Bhagavad Gita,
Krishna, one incarnation of the god Vishnu, has this in mind when he instructs
the great warrior Arjuna, to go into battle. Arjuna was at first reluctant to go into
battle in order to fight against his own cousins, but Krishna tells him that no
weapon can cut atman, no fire can burn atman. Even if you kill someone, you kill
only the body:

"If any man thinks he slays, and if another thinks he is slain, neither knows the
way of truth, The Eternal in man cannot kill; the Eternal in man cannot die. He is
never born, and he never dies. He is in Eternity: he is forever more."

Krishna then urges Arjuna to do his honorable duty as a member of the warrior
caste and go into battle, which Arjuna does.  Buddha denied the atman theory
According to Buddha, there is nothing we can call an inner core, which is eternal
and blissful. There is also nothing we can call upon to exercise authority over the
nature of things. In Buddhism, there is no doer apart from doing, and no
experiencer apart from the experiencing. There is nothing or no one, which is
omnipotent because everything is at the mercy of the constant creation and
dissolution of conditioned things.

Buddha taught that there are only five aggregates (khandhas):

1 Corporeality (material process, or form)

2 feelings;
 19

3 perceptions;
4 metal formations; and
5 consciousness.

Less specifically we may say that there are only two groups of phenomena in this
existence: mind and matter, nama and rupa. Apart from mind and matter there
exists nothing whatsoever that we can call atta. The only thing that exists outside
of the realm of nama and rupa is the unconditioned (asankhata) Nibbána,
Absolute Truth, but. as I will discuss later in these lectures, even Nibbána is
anattá.

Buddha taught that, for us, there are only the five aggregates. We are a
compound of five aggregates, and after we analyze and observe them one by one
with the deep insight of meditation, we will realize that there remains nothing:
no soul, no self, apart from the aggregates. The combination of the five
aggregates is what we call a person, a being, a man, or a woman.

There is nothing apart from the five aggregates - corporeality feelings,

perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness - which are interacting and
dependent upon each other. No director, no doer no experiencer, and no essence
can be found. Atta is merely an idea, which has no corresponding reality
whatsoever.

In the sutras, we find a story of a very famous ascetic-scholar named Saccaka.

One day he heard that Buddha taught the anattá doctrine. Since he was a very
sharp debater he decided that he would go to the Buddha and convince Him that
the anattá doctrine was wrong. He was very confident; he claimed that if he were
to debate with a stone pillar, that pillar would sweat from fear. He claimed that,
just as a strong man takes a goat and flings it around his shoulders, so he would
take hold of Gotama and fling Him around in debate.

Saccaka and his followers went to the Buddha and there exchanged greetings. He
asked Buddha to explain the doctrines He taught. Buddha replied that He taught
anattá.  Saccaka countered, "No. There is atta. The five aggregates are atta."
Buddha replied, "Do you really think that rupa (corporeality) is atta?" As it
happened, Saccaka was very ugly, and if he said that corporeality was atta, then
Buddha could counter, "Then why don't you make yourself more handsome!"

Thus Saccaka was forced to say that rupa is not atta. Here we can see Buddha
striking down several characteristics that are attributed to the atta. If Saccaka had
an atta, he could call upon it to exercise authority and power in order to change
his appearance. After all, atta is identical to Brahman, the supreme ruler the
infinite, omnipotent creator and source of all things, as explained in the
Bhagavad Gita.
 20

But, according to Buddha, there exist only the five aggregates, the five khandhas,
and these are not atta because they are subject to the laws of impermanence,
suffering, and no-soul. Rupa (material form) is not atta; it is not master and ruler
of itself, and it is subject to affliction. The other khandhas - feeling, perception,
mental formations, and consciousness - are also subject to the same laws.
Sacccaka was therefore defeated.

Although it may be easy to understand that rupa (material form) is not atta,
some people may find it difficult to understand why the other khandhas -
feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness - which we may
summarize as simply nama (mind) do not constitute an entity which can be
called atta. After all, many people believe that mind and soul are identical or
interrelated, and they define mind and/or soul as that part of a person which
gives life and consciousness to the physical body and they further believe that, as
such, it is the spiritual and psychological center of the person.

But, according to the Buddha, nama is not atta for the same reasons that rupa is
not atta: nama is equally subject to the laws of impermanence, suffering, and no-
soul, as we shall study further when we analyze the Anattá Lakkhana Sutta in
depth. Buddha treats nama and rupa equally, and they are mutually dependent
upon each other:

"Just as a wooden puppet, though unsubstantial, lifeless, and inactive, may by

means of pulling strings be made to move about, stand up, and appear full of life
and activity; just so are mind and body, as such, something empty, lifeless and
inactive; but by means of their mutual working together, this mental and bodily
combination may move about, stand up, and appear full of life and activity.

Furthermore, we must remember that nama-rupa or khandhas are merely

abstract classifications made by the Buddha, and, as such, they have no real
existence as groups. That is, there is never the functioning of an entire entity or
group known as corporeality or feeling or perception or mental formations or
consciousness, but only the functioning of individual representatives of these
groups.

For example, with one unit of consciousness, only one single kind of feeling can
be associated. Two different units of perception cannot arise at the same
moment, and only one kind of consciousness, for example seeing consciousness,
can arise at one time. A smaller or larger number of mental formations can arise
with every state of consciousness.

The groups never arise as a totality; only constituents or bits from a certain group
can arise depending on conditions. There are no integrally functioning groups
that can be called a self or a mind. Moreover the single constituents of these
 21

apparent groups are all equally subject to the laws of impermanence, suffering,
and no-soul.

Another way to study the Question of why nama is not atta is simply to go back
to the definition of khandhas given by the Buddha in Samyutta Nikáya XX, 56.
Here we will see that the four khandhas, which can be classified simply as nama
(mind) are in no way to be understood as an abiding mind substance or as
anything that can be called atta. Rather, the khandhas are completely
interdependent, and the constituents of each group condition the arising of the
others. There is no self-existing, abiding entity in any part of the following
definition, but only constituents, which mutually condition each other and arise
only when they interact:

"What, 0 monks, is the corporeality-group?

The four primary elements and corporeality depending thereon....

What, 0 monks, is the feeling-group?

There are six classes of feeling: due to visual impression, to sound impression, to
odor impression, to taste impression, to bodily impression, and to mind
impression....

What, 0 monks, is the perception-group?

There are six classes of perception: perception of visual objects, of sounds, of
odors, of tastes, of bodily impressions, and of mental impressions....

What, 0 monks, is the group of mental formations?

There are six classes of volitional states: with regard to visual objects, to sounds,
to odors, to tastes, to bodily impressions, and to mind objects....

What, 0 monks, is the consciousness-group?

There are six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness.
nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness. body-consciousness, and mind-
consciousness."

Based on the above definitions, it is easy to see that nothing, which can be called
atta, can be found in the workings of rupa or nama. Still another way in which
the nature of nama and rupa is analyzed is to be found in the Abhidhamma,
which is highly recommended for anyone who wants to understand Buddhism
thoroughly.

This is the most comprehensive and analytical study of all phenomena given by
the Buddha. Here Buddha analyses nama and rupa into three groups of absolute
realities, which are 89 types of consciousness (cittas), 52 mental factors
(cetasikas), and 28 material properties (rupa). Here too, there is no abiding mind
 22

substance or atta, but only the interdependent workings of the constituents of

these groups.

Misunderstanding Anattá
We will now discuss some of the attempts to place a doctrine of atta into
Buddhism. Some scholars have tried to, in the words of Dr. Walpola Rahula,
"smuggle" the idea of atta into the teachings of the Buddha."

Let us now see how two scholars, Ánanda K. Coomaraswamy and I. B.  Horner,
already discussed briefly have mistranslated certain Pali terms to demonstrate
that Buddha affirmed the existence of atta. They argue that Buddha did indeed
claim that the five aggregates are not atta, but that He never directly denied the
existence of atta. The five aggregates are not atta, but there is something apart
from the five aggregates that we can call atta, self or soul, these scholars claim."’
Whenever Coomaraswamy and Horner see the word atta, they try to imagine
that it means eternal self or soul.

One of the passages they point to is found in Dhammapada (verse I60): "Atta hi
attano natho." They translate is as "Self is the lord of self." They say that it means
that the big Self is the lord of the little self. Actually, it means, "One is one’s own
lord or refuge," or, "One is one’s own support." The second line of the verse
reads, "Ko hi natho paro siya,?" or "Who else can be the lord or refuge?" In Pali,
the word atta can mean self, soul, or eternal self, in the Hindu sense, or it can
simply be a part of a reflexive pronoun like himself, yourself, or myself. Thus
when Buddha says "Atta hi attano natho, ko hi natho paro siya?" mean "One is
one’s own lord or refuge; who else can be the lord or refuge", it is clear that atta
means oneself, not soul.

Buddha urges people to rely on themselves, on their own effort, and not to rely
on others in their spiritual practice. Another passage, which is misinterpreted in
the book by Coomaraswamy and Horner, is from the 'Maha Parinibbána Sutta’: 
"Attadipa viharatha anannasarana." The meaning is, "Dwell having yourself as
an island, having yourself as a refuge and not anyone else as a refuge." Here also
they interpret atta to mean soul or eternal self.

They claim that Buddha was instructing us to make the soul our island or refuge.
But in the next line, Buddha says, "Dhammadipa viharatha dhammasarana
anannasarana," which means, "Dwell having the Dhamma (Buddha’s teachings)
as an island, having the Dhamma as a refuge, nothing else as a refuge." Buddha
is instructing his followers to rely on their own effort and on the teachings,
especially as He was soon to be gone from this earth.
 23

The idea of atta as soul is completely foreign to this passage. Moreover Buddha
went on to say, "How is the monk to dwell making himself an island?" He then
went on to describe the practice of the four foundations of mindfulness. The
Buddha really meant that one should make Satipatthána meditation
(contemplation of the body, feelings, mind, and Dhamma objects) one’s refuge.

There is no mention of soul whatsoever. Another passage Coomaraswamy and

Horner point to is the story in which Buddha spoke to some princes. There were
thirty princes who were cousins of King Pasenadi of Kosala. Twenty-nine of
them had wives, but one did not.

One day, they went to a park to amuse themselves, and they hired a woman for
the unwed prince. When they were drunk and having fun, the hired woman took
all of the valuables and ran away with them. They looked for her and met the
Buddha. They asked Buddha if He had seen her and He said,

"What do you think, young men! Which is better for you? To search after the
woman or to search after yourselves (attanam gaveseyyatha)?" They replied that
it would be better to search after themselves, and so Buddha told them to sit
down and listen to a Dhamma talk.

Coomaraswamy and Horner interpret the word atta in that passage to mean
higher self or soul, and they want it to mean that Buddha told the princes to
search after atta. But Buddha is telling the princes to turn away from chasing
after worldly pleasures and to practice the self-discipline of the Noble Path. In
that Dhamma talk, Buddha spoke about giving (Dana), moral conduct (síla), the
celestial world (sagga), the peril, vanity and depravity of ‘sense pleasures
(kamanam adinavam, etc.), and the advantages of renunciation (nekkhamme
anisamsam). There is no mention whatsoever of searching for a soul, for atta.

Another passage mistranslated by Coomaraswamy and Horner is one found in

Visuddhimagga: "buddhatta ... Buddho." They translate it as, "Buddha is
awakened Self." But the correct translation of the Pali is, "He is the Buddha
because he knows or he has known." The word buddhatta is not a compound so
of Buddha and atta, but one word, Buddha, with the suffix - tta combined with
the ablative case termination, a, which means `because of'. The word buddhatta
therefore means ‘because of the state of being one who knows’.

It would be better to say that one does not believe in the anattá doctrine and that
Buddha was wrong about it than to try to say that Buddha taught a religion with
atta in it. It is not accurate to say that Buddha did not deny atta.  In fact, there are
many places in the Pali canon where atta is denied by Buddha. For example,
Buddha once said, "I do not see a soul theory which, if accepted, does not lead to
the arising of grief, lamentation, suffering, distress, and tribulations." Buddha
 24

also said, "Since neither self nor anything pertaining to self can truly be found, is
not the speculative view that the universe is atta wholly and completely foolish?"

Buddha teaches that belief in atta is a wrong view (ditthi or miccha-ditthi) which
will lead to misery. Wrong views must be rejected because they are a source of
wrong and evil aspirations and conduct.

In Majjhima Nikáya, Buddha describes the belief in atta as an idea which leads to
selfishness and pride: "The Perfect One is free from any theory (ditthigata), for
the Perfect One has seen what corporeality is, and how it arises and passes away.
He has seen what feeling... perception... mental formations…consciousness are,
and how they arise and pass away. Therefore I say that the Perfect One has won
complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away disappearance,
rejection and casting out of all imaginings and conjectures, of all inclinations to
the vainglory of ‘I’ and ‘mine’."

In the famous Brahmajala Sutta, which is recommended for those who want to
study an explanation of wrong views, Buddha describes and classifies all
conceivable wrong views and speculations about reality. One of those wrong
views is the belief that there exists an eternal self. Buddha says of this view:

"Therein, Bhikkhus, when those recluses and Brahmins who are eternalists
proclaim on four grounds the self and the world to be eternal - that is only the
agitation and vacillation of those who do not know and do not see; that is only
the agitation and vacillation of those who are immersed in craving."

Coomaraswamy and Horner argue that Buddha’s denial of atta refers only to the
phenomenal self, and that His denial is really an affirmation of what they call the
Great Self (mah’atta) . They argue that Buddha stated that the five aggregates are
not atta, but that He never categorically stated that there is no atta, or Self.

They claim that Buddha was only directing us not to see the real Self in the
personal ego - a view identical to the Hindu view. They reason that Buddha’s
denial of certain things being atta indicates that He affirmed a true atta of a
different nature. When Buddha said, "This is not atta," these scholars insert the
following argument: "But a moment’s consideration of the logic of the words will
show that they assume the reality of a Self that is not any one or all of the ‘things’
that are denied of it."

But let us say, for the sake of argument, that I have five animal horns here. If I
say, "None of these horns is the horn of a rabbit," does it mean that there exists
somewhere else or in another form such a thing as a horn of a rabbit?

No. A horn of a rabbit is just a designation, an abstraction, without any

corresponding reality. Similarly Buddha often said, "This is not atta. That is not
 25

atta. Nothing here is atta." Does that indicate that Buddha means that there exists
somewhere something that can be called atta? No.

I will conclude this section by explaining a very important statement found in

Patisambhidamagga and in Majjhima Nikáya:   "Sabbe sankhárá anicca; sabbe
sankhárá dukkha (not in M.N.); sabbe dhamma anatta." The first sentence means,
"AII conditioned things are impermanent." The second means, ‘All conditioned
things are suffering."

The third sentence however is different. Here, Buddha does not use the word
sarckhara, but He uses Dhamma instead. Dhamma here means all things without
exception. So the third sentence means, ‘AII things, conditioned or
unconditioned, are anattá, are void of self and soul." This means that even
Nibbána, which is asankhara, unconditioned, is not atta or is void of atta. This
statement unequivocally denies atta of any kind, even in ultimate Truth and
Enlightenment, even in Nibbána.
 

Questions and Answers

Q: When you feel pain, you think that it is more permanent than thought. It is
not permanent, but it does seem to be continuous.

Yes, it seems to be continuous and to last for a long time, but actually the pain
arises and disappears at every moment. Because we cannot see it arising every
moment, we think that it is one solid thing. But when you practice meditation
and keep noticing the pain, you will get concentration, and then you will come to
see that there are gaps in that pain.

The same applies to sound, for example. If you note sound in your mind as it
occurs, you will get concentration, and you will come to experience gaps in that
sound: there is not really one continuous sound.

A person once told me about this level of concentration, which he achieved while
he was meditating. Music was playing very loudly the whole night, so he could
do nothing except concentrate on the sound by noting "hearing, hearing,
hearing." He then achieved concentration and experienced the music in small
bits; in other words, he was able to detect gaps in what seemed to be one
continuous sound. The elements of the music actually arise and disappear every
moment; nothing is ever the same for even two tiny milliseconds.
 
 26

Q: When I look at my own mental pain, I see a whole pattern of pain which; I
interpret according to psychology, which I have studied. I think I have a pretty
good knowledge of what it is, but is than an obstacle to seeing the nature of
pain?

All that is needed to see the nature of pain is to dwell with awareness on it, to
make mental notes of it, and when you get enough concentration, you will
penetrate into the nature of pain and see that it is impermanent.
 

Q: Even if I were to lose a lot of weight, cut my hair, and develop all new
interests, others and myself would still know me as myself. Why is that, if
there is no continuity?

That continuity is created only in our minds. Actually, there is no continuity, but
there is the relationship of cause and effect. Many people ask: ‘If there is no
atman to go to different worlds, how do Buddhists say that we have past and
future lives?’ The answer is that mental and physical phenomena arise and
disappear at every moment. They arise, and then disappear, and in their place,
other new phenomena arise. But the new phenomena that arise are not totally
different or new because they have arisen due to some cause

Kamma causes the next life, and that next life is not totally new and different;
neither is it the same or identical. The cause causes the effect to arise, and that
effect is not the result of just any cause, but of a specific cause: a strong
relationship exists between the cause and the effect.  The cause can impart some
of its similar Qualities to the effect, impart in the sense of causing certain
qualities to arise.

In this way we have the notion of continuity but actually everything is newly
arisen at every moment.  There is a Buddhist formula describing rebirth: neither
that person nor another. This means a person is reborn in a future life, but that
person is not the identical person who died here; neither is that person reborn as
a totally new person.

The commentaries, such as Visuddhimagga, XVII, give some similes as examples.

Suppose someone shouts into a cave. When the sound comes back, it is not the
original sound, but without the original sound, there can be no echo. Or suppose
one lights a candle from another candle. It cannot be said that the flame has
transferred itself to another candle. The flame in the second candle is not the
same as that in the first one, but it came into being with the help of the first
candle. Similarly, a seal leaves an impression on paper. The impression is not the
same as the original seal, but neither is it unrelated to it.
 27

We Buddhists do not accept permanence, but we accept a connection as cause

and effect. Cause and effect go on and on, even in this lifetime, from moment to
moment. This gives a person the impression of continuity, the impression of
being the same person continually. Cause and effect go on and on throughout the
life span until old age and death.

But death is just a conventional term for the disappearance of a certain

psychophysical life process. But actually we are dying and being reborn at every
moment. Thoughts likewise die and come into being at every moment, as do
physical properties. Thus, even when we are living as we do now, we are dying,
but we do not call it dying. We call it dying only when we come to the end of one
life. Immediately after the end of this life, there is the next life. Immediately after
death, there is rebirth; there is no interim between death and rebirth.

Think of the midnight hour of the previous day only one second after that, we
call it a new day the next day. Actually time is just going on and on. One
moment we call Sunday, and the next moment we call Monday.  Similarly life
and death and rebirth go on continually."
 

Q: How does rebirth cease?

It ceases only when a person cuts off the root of this process. The roots are lobha
(attachment), dosa (anger) and moha (ignorance). The Arahants have cut off this
process altogether so for them, no future rebirth occurs. They have no desire for
the life-death process to continue. It is like a lamp: when the oil is used up, the
flame just disappears.  Desire is like the oil; when desire is cut off there is no new
becoming.
 

Q: But why does not an Arahant disappear at the moment of  enlightenment?"

That is because the present life, by which I mean the present body and mind, is
the result of past kamma. Past kamma gives rise to this present life, and it must
run its course. The Arahant does not acquire new kamma, but past kamma must
have its effect.
 

Anattalakkhana Sutta

Thus have I heard: The Exalted One was at one time residing at Benares in the
 28

Deer Park at Isipatana. There the Exalted One addressed the group of five monks
saying: "Monks," and they replied to Him, "Venerable Sir"
 

Then the Exalted One said:

"Form (rupa or matter) is not soul (anattá). If form, monks, were soul, then this
form would not lead to affliction, and one would be able to say, ‘Let my form be
thus. Let my form not be thus.’ But since form is not soul, so it leads to affliction,
and no one can say ‘Let my form be thus. Let my form be not thus."

"Feeling (vedana) is not soul. If feeling, monks, were soul, then this feeling
would not lead to affliction, and one would be able to say, ‘Let my feeling be
thus. Let my feeling not be thus.’ But since feeling is not soul, so it leads to
affliction, and no one can say ‘Let my feeling be thus. Let my feeling not be thus."

"Perception (sañña) is not soul. If perception, monks, were soul, then this
perception would not lead to affliction, and one would be able to say, ‘Let my
perception be thus. Let my perception not be thus.’ But since perception is not
soul, so it leads to affliction, and no one can say, ‘Let my perception be thus. Let
my perception not be thus."

"Mental formations (sankhárás) are not soul. If mental formations, monks, were
soul, then these mental formations would not lead to affliction, and one would
be able to say, ‘Let my mental formations be thus. Let my mental formations not
be thus.’ But since mental formations are not soul, so they lead to affliction, and
no one can say, ‘Let my mental formations be thus. Let my mental formations not
be thus."

"Consciousness (vinnana) is not soul. If consciousness, monks, were soul, then

this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one would be able to say ‘Let
my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.‘ But since
consciousness is not soul, so it leads to affliction, and no one can say ‘Let my
consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus."

"Monks, what do you think? Is form permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, Venerable Sir."

"Now what is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory (dukkha) or satisfactory

(sukha)?"
"Unsatisfactory Venerable Sir"

"Now what is impermanent, what is unsatisfactory, what is transitory - is it fit to

be perceived thus: ‘This is mine; this is I; this is my soul’?"
"No, Venerable Sir"
 29

"Monks, what do you think? Is feeling permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, Venerable Sir"

"Now what is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory!"

"Unsatisfactory, Venerable Sir"

"Now what is impermanent, what is unsatisfactory what is transitory - is it fit to

be regarded thus: ‘This is mine. This is I. This is my soul?"
"No, Venerable Sir"

"Monks, what do you think? Is perception permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, Venerable Sir."

"Now what is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory Venerable Sir "

"Now what is impermanent, what is unsatisfactory what is transitory - is it fit to

be regarded thus: ‘This is mine. This is I. This is my soul?"
"No, Venerable Sir"

"Monks, what do you think? Are mental formations permanent or impermanent."

"Impermanent, Venerable Sir "

"Now what is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, Venerable Sir."

"Now what is impermanent, what is unsatisfactory what is transitory - is it ft to

be regarded thus: ‘This is mine. This is I. This is my soul"
"No, Venerable Sir."

"Monks, what do you think? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, Venerable Sir "

"Now what is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, Venerable Sir"

"Now what is impermanent, what is unsatisfactory, what is transitory is it fit to

be regarded thus: ‘This is mine. This is I. This is my soul’?"
"No, Venerable Sir."

"So, monks, whatever perception, whether past, future, or present: whether gross
or subtle; whether in oneself or in others; whether inferior or superior; whether
far or near; must with right understanding of things as they really are, be
regarded thus:
 30

‘This is not mine. This is not I. This is not my soul."

"So, monks, whatever mental formations, whether past, future, or present;

whether gross or subtle; whether in oneself or in others; whether inferior or
superior; whether far or near; must, with right understanding of things as they
really are. be regarded thus: ‘This is not mine. This is not I.

This is not my soul."

"So, monks, whatever consciousness, whether past, future, or present; whether

gross or subtle; whether in oneself or in others; whether inferior or superior:
whether far or near; must, with right understanding of things as they really are,
be regarded thus: ‘This is not mine. This is not I. This is not my soul. "

"Seeing thus, monks, the learned disciple of the Noble Ones becomes weary of
form, weary also of feelings, weary also of perception, weary also of mental
formations, and weary also of consciousness. Being weary, he becomes detached;
being detached, he becomes free; being free, the knowledge arises, ‘I am free."

"And he knows, ‘Rebirth is no more; I have finished practicing the life of purity;
done is what should be done; of this there is no more beyond."

This is what the Exalted One said. Delighted, the group of five monks rejoiced at
the Exalted One’s words.

And while this discourse was being given, the minds of the group of five monks
were liberated from defilements through clinging no more.