Anattā
The Pali word anattā combines the prefix an meaning not with attā, which translates to self-existent essence. This composite term defines a central Buddhist concept stating no phenomenon possesses a permanent unchanging self or essence. Scholars like Peter Harvey note that translating anattā simply as not-Self expresses incomplete meaning. A more complete rendering is non-Self, indicating emptiness of Self or what belongs to Self. Richard Gombrich argues that anattā often gets mistranslated as having no self when it actually means is not ātman instead of does not have ātman. The Indian concept of ātman differs significantly from the Freudian concept of ego. Closest to Western ideas of ego is the I am conceit, the root of self-importance and self-centeredness. This delusion remains until enlightenment arrives for those who follow the path.
Samyutta Nikaya III.141 contains one of many sutras where the concept of Anattā appears as a noun in ancient Buddhist texts. The Dhammapada also references this doctrine alongside other canonical works like Anguttara Nikaya II.37, 45. Steven Collins observes that inquiry into anattā and denial of self appears only within certain theoretical contexts in these texts. Other terms such as atta, purisa, puggala appear naturally and freely across various contexts without denying existence. Collins identifies three forms through which suttas present the doctrine: applying no-self investigation to all phenomena, denying self of any person, and using nominal reference to identify examples of self versus not-self. Richard Gombrich and Alexander Wynne argue early descriptions do not deny there is a self but rather describe human experience through five aggregates. Johannes Bronkhorst suggests original Buddhism may not have denied soul existence while maintaining liberation comes from turning away from what might be regarded as self.
The Buddha emphasized both karma and anattā doctrines simultaneously throughout his teachings. He criticized atthikavāda, the doctrine positing unchanging essence as subject basis for rebirth and moral responsibility. Materialistic annihilationist schools called natthikavāda denied existence of soul and rebirth entirely. Damien Keown notes the Buddha condemned materialistic views encouraging moral irresponsibility and hedonism. Anattā does not mean absence of afterlife or karmic fruition; instead it contrasts with annihilationist schools. Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism all assert belief in rebirth emphasizing moral responsibility differently than pre-Buddhist materialistic philosophies. Charvaka school exemplifies annihilationist thought claiming death ends everything without soul or rebirth. The Buddha asserted no essence exists yet rebirth occurs requiring karmic moral responsibility within his framework. Right view and right actions remain necessary conditions for liberation according to this dual emphasis on karma and non-self.
Oliver Leaman states Theravada scholars consider Anattā doctrine one of main theses distinguishing Buddhism from Christianity and Hinduism. Nyanatiloka Mahathera asserts entire Buddhist structure stands or falls based on this teaching. Collins identifies two major loci where insight into anattā develops: avoiding sakkayaditthi personality belief and achieving psychological realization through loss of pride or conceit. Donald Swearer explains meditative practices inspire monks while lay Buddhists focus on merit and ritual behaviors. Paul Williams highlights modern Thai Buddhist disputes regarding whether Nirvana represents true self or absolute no-self. Ven. Payutto criticized Dhammakaya tradition as heretical in 1994 stating Buddha taught Nibbana as being no-self. Luang Por Sermchai argues meditation practitioners experience true self unlike scholars holding absolute views. Ajahn Maha Bua described citta mind as indestructible reality falling outside anattā scope. Thanissaro Bhikkhu calls phrase there is no self granddaddy of fake Buddhist quotes suggesting intentional silence about self existence prevents enlightenment.
Nāgārjuna founded Madhyamaka middle way school around 200 CE analyzing dharma first as factors of experience. Chapter 18 of his Mūlamadhyamakakārikā asserts no substantial entity exists called ātman self soul. David Kalupahana states Nāgārjuna analyzed how experiences relate to bondage freedom action consequence before examining personal self notion. He denied any self-nature or other-nature emphasizing true knowledge comprehends emptiness. Anyone failing to dissociate from belief in personality remains caught cycle rebirths redeaths due to ignorance avidya. Vasubandhu wrote texts attributed to Yogācāra school discussing anātman as fundamental premise during fifth century. Candrakīrti challenged Vasubandhu interpretations offering own theories regarding importance during seventh century. Early Mahayana texts link discussion emptiness śūnyatā to anātman and nirvana through three ways: monk meditative state emptiness, everything world empty self sense, ultimate realization ending rebirth cycles suffering. Anātman doctrine represents another aspect śūnyatā nature nirvana state ending rebirths according to these traditions.
Some first-millennium CE Buddhist texts suggest concepts implying self-like existence within tathāgatagarbha sutras. Title itself means garbha womb matrix seed containing Tathāgata Buddha essence core inner nature. Paul Williams notes all sentient beings contain Tathagata as their essential nature according to these writings. Doctrine appeared later part third century CE verifiable Chinese translations one thousand years ago. Most scholars consider tathāgatagarbha doctrine equivalent self contradicting vast majority anātman teachings. Mahaparinirvana Sutra explicitly asserts Buddha used term self winning over non-Buddhist ascetics. Ratnagotravibhāga translated into Chinese 511 CE points teaching intended win sentient beings abandoning self-love defect. Sixth-century Chinese translation states Buddha has shiwo true self beyond being nonbeing yet implies not-self. Jamie Hubbard detects leanings monism while Michael Zimmermann sees notion unperishing eternal self basic point Tathagatara Sutra. Some argue Buddha-nature does not represent substantial self but positive language expressing śūnyatā emptiness potentiality realizing Buddhahood through practice.
Atman refers essence human beings observing pure awareness witness-consciousness unaffected by ego distinct individual jivanatman embedded material reality. James Hart describes Atman characterized Ahamkara I-making mind citta manas defiling kleshas impurities. Embodied personality changes time while Atman remains constant according to Jayatilleke Upanishadic inquiry fails find empirical correlate assumed existence nevertheless assumes it exists. Advaitins reify consciousness eternal self contrasting Buddhist satisfaction empirical investigation showing no such Atman exists evidence. Peter Harvey notes negation temporal existents applied rigorously even more than Upanishads within Buddhism. Post-Buddhist Matri Upanishad holds only defiled individual self rather universal one thinks this is I mine very reminiscent Buddhism influencing divorce universal Self egocentric associations. Thomas Wood explains numerous descriptions states niratman sarvasyatman used explain nondual highest Self concept Ramatirtha Paul Deussen state stopping recognition oneself reaching awareness universal soul metaphysical Brahman. Greek philosopher Pyrrho traveled India Alexander Great entourage influenced Indian gymnosophists creating philosophy Pyrrhonism Christopher Beckwith argues Pyrrho based philosophy translation three marks existence into Greek reflecting understanding anattā.
Continue Browsing
Common questions
What does the Pali word anattā mean in Buddhist doctrine?
The Pali word anattā means non-Self, indicating that no phenomenon possesses a permanent unchanging self or essence. Scholars like Peter Harvey note this term defines emptiness of Self rather than simple absence.
When did Nāgārjuna found the Madhyamaka middle way school and what was his view on self?
Nāgārjuna founded the Madhyamaka middle way school around 200 CE asserting no substantial entity exists called ātman self soul. Chapter 18 of his Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states no self-nature exists within any person.
How does the tathāgatagarbha doctrine relate to the concept of anattā in later Buddhist texts?
Some first-millennium CE Buddhist texts suggest concepts implying self-like existence within tathāgatagarbha sutras appearing in the third century CE. Most scholars consider this doctrine equivalent to self contradicting vast majority anātman teachings yet some argue it expresses śūnyatā emptiness potentiality.
Why do Hinduism Jainism and Buddhism all assert belief in rebirth differently from materialistic schools?
Hinduism Jainism and Buddhism all assert belief in rebirth emphasizing moral responsibility differently than pre-Buddhist materialistic philosophies like Charvaka school which claimed death ends everything without soul or rebirth. The Buddha condemned materialistic views encouraging moral irresponsibility while maintaining karmic fruition occurs without permanent essence.
What is the relationship between atman and anattā according to Upanishadic inquiry and Buddhist analysis?
Atman refers to essence human beings observing pure awareness witness-consciousness unaffected by ego distinct individual jivanatman embedded material reality. Peter Harvey notes negation temporal existents applied rigorously even more than Upanishads within Buddhism showing no such Atman exists evidence.