No Inner Core

8/6/2019 No Inner Core

1/70

eBUDDHANET'SBOOK LIBRARYE-mail: [email protected] site: www.buddhanet.net

Buddha Dharma Education Association Inc.

Sayadaw U Silananda

No Inner CoreAn Introduction to theDoctrine of ANATTA

No Inner CoreAn Introduction to theDoctrine of ANATTA


2/70

ii

AN INWARD JOURNEY BOOK

Published by INWARD PATH PUBLISHER

P.O. Box 1034, 10830 Penang, Malaysia.

Tel/Fax: 04 890 6696 Email: [email protected]

Special Thanks to Sarah E Marks (Dhammachakka Meditation Centre, USA), on

behalf of the Sayadaw U Silananda for the kind permission given to us, the Inward

Path Publisher to re-print and publish this booklet in Malaysia. Venerable Suvano

and Sayalay Dhammadinna (Mitosi & Buddhist Hermitage Lunas); Stephen

Gerber (Bodhisara), Pauline Chong and Sabrina Ooi for their support, assistance

and for making this Dhamma Book available for Free Distribution.

1999 Sayadaw U Silananda, USA.

All Rights Reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner

without written permission from the publisher. For additional information please

contact the publisher.

Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia Cataloguing-in-Publication Data:Silananda, Sayadaw U

No inner core: an introduction to the doctrine of anatta /

Sayadaw U Silananda; edited by Anthony Billings & Maung Tin-Wa

ISBN 983-9439-09-X

1. Buddhism Psychology. I. Soul (Buddhism). II. Billings, Anthony.

III. Tin-Wa, Maung. III. Title 294.3

First Edition: 3,000 copies 1995 (Dhammacakkha Meditation Centre, USA).

Second Edition: 3,000 copies 1999 (IJ016/98).

Book Layout and Design by Sunanda Lim Hock Eng.

Printed in Penang, Malaysia.


3/70

iii

coverdesign

bySunandaH.E.

Lim(IPP)

~ NO INNER CORE ~An Introduction to the Doctrine of Anatta

by Sayadaw U Slnandaedited by Anthony Billings & Maung Tin-Wa

published by INWARD PATH PUBLISHERPenang Malaysia

AN INWARD JOURNEY BOOK IJ016/98


4/70

2

Contents

Preface ................................................................................................. 3Introduction ................................................................................... 7

Understanding Anatt ...................................................... 15

Misunderstanding Anatt ............................................. 29

Impermanence, Suffering and No-Soul ........... 35

Direct Experience of Anatt ........................................ 40Analysis of the Discourse on the

Characteristic of No-Soul ......................................... 42

Questions and Answers .................................................. 51

Anattalakkhaa Sutta ........................................................ 56

Bibliography ................................................................................. 61Endnotes ......................................................................................... 63

Other Inward Journey Publications .....................67


5/70

3

Preface

The anatt doctrine is one of the most importantteachings of Buddhism. It is the most distinctive

feature of Buddhism for, as many scholars have recog-nized, it makes Buddhism different from all other reli-gions. Although the anatt doctrine is so important, sodistinctive, and supposedly so universally accepted byBuddhists, it is still the most misunderstood, the most

misinterpreted, and the most distorted of all the teach-ings of the Buddha. Some scholars who have writtenon Buddhism had a great respect for the Buddha, likedHis teachings, revered Him and honoured Him, butthey could not imagine that such a profound thinkerhad actually denied the existence of a soul.

Sayadaw U Slnanda is the Abbot of the Dhamma-

nanda Vihara, Half Moon Bay, California, and theSpiritual Director of Dhammachakka MeditationCenter, Theravada Buddhist Society of America andTathagata Meditation Center, having been chosen bythe renowned Burmese meditation master, the MostVenerable Mahasi Sayadaw, to teach in America andspread the Dhamma in the West.

Sayadaw has been a Buddhist monk since 1947. Heholds two Dhammcariya (Master of Dhamma) degreesand has taught at the Atithokdayone Pi Universityand was an External Examiner at the Departmentof Oriental Studies, University of Art and Sciences,Mandalay, Myanmar. Sayadaw was the chief com-piler of the comprehensive Tipiaka Pi-Burmese Dict-


6/70

4

ionary and one of the final editors of the Pi Texts,Commentaries, and Sub-Commentaries at the SixthBuddhist Council, held in 1954.

Sayadaw is the author of seven scholarly Buddhistbooks in the Burmese language and an English publica-tion on the Four Foundations of Mindfulness, in 1990.

Since his arrival in America in 1979, Sayadaw has been teaching Vipassan (Insight) meditation, Abhi-dhamma (Buddhist psychology), and other aspects ofTheravda Buddhism, and leading meditation retreats

throughout the country and in Japan, Europe and Asia.Sayadaw is actively engaged in teaching a broad rangeof students in English, Burmese, Pi and Sanskrit.Sayadaw is loved by his students as a skilled, patientand compassionate teacher.

Sayadaw U Slnanda


7/70

5

The understanding of anatt, the theory of no-soulor non-self, is a tough nut to crack. Yet only with acorrect understanding of this key Buddhist issue canwe open the door to the profound and liberating teach-ings of the Buddha.

Knowing about the crucial importance of the doc-trine ofanatt, the reader might gather his or her cour-age to work through Sayadaws scholarly introductionto this central teaching.

Do not feel disheartened should the text be difficult

for you at a first reading. If you want to practise insightmeditation it is good enough to have a basic right feelabout anatt. It is the suspension of disbelief in the ideaofanatt, non-self, which is the key to the door of in-sight. Once you are inwardly open to the possibility ofthere being no soul or lasting ego-entity in you, thenyour investigation of reality through insight meditation

will be free to unfold. It is actually only through sucha meditative investigation and the resulting personal,intuitive experience of anatt that your preliminaryopenness and theoretical understanding can graduateinto a verified and direct one.

You should return to Sayadaws text after havinghad your own insight into the selfless nature of things,

as you will find that understanding the text will thenbe much easier for you.

Bodhisara Stephen Gerber


8/70

6

Sharing of Merits

May this booklet be of help

to many for deepening their

understanding of the Buddha Dhamma.

May this knowledge of the Buddha Dhamma

open the path to liberation and leadto the attainment of Nibbana.

The sponsors of this booklet

share the merit of this dna

with all beings.

May they too, by understandingthe Buddha Dhamma,

be able to put it into practice,

and may it finally lead them to

the attainment of Nibbana,

the path to the Happiness of Peace.

May all beings be well and happy.

Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!


9/70

7

Introduction

The following discourse is based on a collection oflectures on the Anatt doctrine given by SayadawU Slnanda. Anatt is a Pi word consisting of anegative prefix, an meaning not, plus atta, soul, andis most literally translated as no-soul. The word atta,however, has a wide range of meanings, and some ofthose meanings cross over into the fields of psycho-

logy, philosophy, and everyday terminology, as, forexample, when atta can mean self, being, ego, andperson-ality. Therefore, in this preface, we will examine andelucidate the wide range of meanings which atta cansignify in order to determine exactly what the Buddhadenied when He proclaimed that He teaches anatt,that is, when He denied the existence ofatta. We willexamine both Buddhist and non-Buddhist definitionsof the term soul, and we will also examine moderndefinitions of terms such as ego and self.

Most writers in the field of religion, when writingabout soul or anatt specifically, use the terms self, ego,being and soul interchangeably, while psychologists

define those terms as totally different entities. If wedefine atta as including the terms self, ego, personality,and being, we may make the mistake of claiming thatBuddha denied the phenomena of individual differ-ences, individual personalities, individual kamma andother features of individuality in people. But if we saythat Buddha denied only the theological entity of a


10/70

8

soul, while leaving intact a psychological entity suchas an ego or self, then we are also mistaken.

The resolution of this dilemma lies in the fact thatwe must deal with two levels of reality simultaneously,the ultimate level and the conventional level. In theabsolute sense, the anatt doctrine denies any and allpsychological entities or agents inside the person. Inthe absolute sense, all phenomena, including what iscalled a person, are composed of elements, forces, anda stream of successive states. The Buddha organized

these phenomena into conceptual groups, known askhandhas (aggregates), and they are: (1) material pro-cesses, also known as bodily form, corporeality ormatter; (2) feeling; (3) perception; (4) mental forma-tions; and (5) consciousness. Most importantly, whenall mental and physical phenomena are analyzed intothose elements, no residual entity, such as a soul, self,

or ego, can be found. In short, there are actions execut-ed by these groups, but no actor. The workings of thesegroups of forces and elements appear to us as an egoor personality, but in reality, the ego or self or agent ofthe actions has only an illusory existence.

However, on the conventional level, the workingsof these forces, elements, and states are organized by

causal laws, and, although they in no way constituteany extra-phenomenal self or soul, they do producea human individual, a person if we want to call acertain combination of material and mental processesa person. This complex combination of material andmental processes is dependent entirely on previousprocesses, especially the continuity ofkamma which is


11/70

9

the process of ethical volitions and the results of thosevolitions. Thus individual differences are accountedfor even though the self or ego or personality is, inthe ultimate sense, denied. An individual may be anangry, hot-tempered person, for example, because inthe past he or she has performed actions which leaveconditions for traits, which are kamma results, to arisein the present. But this happens because kamma leavesa potential for those traits of anger and ill will to arise,not because any kind of self of the person is continu-

ing. Actually, the human individual does not remainthe same for two consecutive moments; everything is asuccession of forces and elements, and there is nothingsubstantial. Therefore, on the conventional level, wemay say that individual differences have an illusoryexistence. Common everyday conceptions, such as ego,self, and personality, seem to be very real, obvious, and

well-defined by psychologists and laymen alike, butthey are, on the absolute level and in the eyes of thosewho have achieved enlightenment, illusory.

Another way to approach Buddhist psychology isto examine the very complex and technical psycho-logical system known asAbhidhamma. TheAbhidhammais, in the words of Narada Maha Thera, a psychology

without a psyche.1Abhidhamma teaches that ultimatereality consists of four elementary constituents. One,Nibbna (in Sanskrit, Nirva) is unconditioned, andthe other three, citta, cetasika, and rpa consciousness,mental factors, and matter, respectively are condi-tioned. These elementary constituents, called dham-mas, alone possess ultimate reality. The familiar world


12/70

10

of objects and persons, and the interior world of egoand self, are only conceptual constructs created by themind out of the elemental dhammas.Abhidhamma thusrestricts itself to terms that are valid from the stand-point of ultimate realities: it describes reality in termsof ultimate truth. Thus it describes dhammas, theircharacteristics, their functions, and their relations. Allconceptual entities, such as self or being or person, areresolved into their ultimates, into bare mental andmaterial phenomena, which are impermanent, condi-

tioned, dependently arisen, and empty of any abidingself or substance. Consciousness, for example, whichseems like one continual flow, is described as a suc-cession of discrete evanescent mental events, the cittas,and a complex set of mental factors, the cetasikas, whichperform more specialized tasks in the act of conscious-ness. There is no self, soul, or any kind of agent inside

a person involved in this process.2

Now let us examine some of the terms related toatta that we find in various sources. The definition ofSoul, Spirit given in the Abingdon Dictionary of LivingReligions is as follows: That which gives life to anyanimate thing; or the inner, essential, or noncorporealpart or dimension of any animate thing; or a noncor-

poreal but animate substance or entity; or a noncorpo-real but individuated personal being.3

Another definition of soul comes from RichardKennedy in The International Dictionary of Religion:

Many religions teach that man is composed of a physi-cal body, which does not survive death, and an eternal,invisible core which is the true self or soul.4


13/70

11

Donald Watson, in A Dictionary of Mind and Spirit,writes, in the entry Soul: It goes by many names:jva(Jain), tman (Hindu), Monad, Ego, Self, Higher Self,Overself, elusive self, psyche, or even Mind.5

In these non-Buddhist definitions of soul, we seemany terms interchanged, such as core, ego, and essence.Sayadaw U Slnanda will elaborate on these mean-ings in his lectures.

Two Buddhist definitions ofatta are here given. Thefirst is from Nyanatilokas Buddhist Dictionary. any-

thing that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as aself-existing, real ego-entity, soul or any other abidingsubstance.6

In The Truth of Anatta, Dr. G.P Malalasekera statesthat atta is self, as a subtle metaphysical entity, soul.7These definitions also cover a wide range of meaningsof the term atta and of the usual translations ofatta as

soul and self.The above definitions ofatta, soul, sometimes crossover into the realm of psychology when the authorsdefine soul as self, ego,psyche or mind. Did the Buddhadeny that such conceptions as ego and self are realwhen He proclaimed the anatt doctrine? Once again,the answer depends on whether we are speaking of

absolute or conventional reality. But first we will ex-amine some definitions from psychology to see whatwas actually denied both implicitly and explicitly bythe anatt doctrine.

According to the Dictionary of Psychology, selfis: (1)the individual as a conscious being. (2) the ego or I.(3) the personality, or organization of traits.8 The defi-


14/70

12

nition of ego is the self, particularly the individualsconception of himself.9Personality is defined as thedynamic organization within the individual of thosepsychophysical systems that determine his character-istic behavior and thought.10 Another definition ofpersonality is that which permits a prediction of whata person will do in a given situation.11 These psycho-logical terms correspond to some of the terms used inBuddhism to deal with the conventional life of sentientbeings. They have a useful purpose as labels, but in the

ultimate sense, these labels are, as we shall see, meredesignations which have only an illusory reality.In Pi, we have the terms satta, puggala, jva and

atta to describe the conventional psychology of beings.Satta, according to Nyanatiloka, means living being.12Puggala means individual, person, as well as the syn-onyms: personality, individuality, being (satta), self

(atta).13Jva is life, vital principle, individual soul.14Some uses ofatta also fall within the realm of psy-

chology.Atta can mean, according to Dr. Malalasekera,ones self or ones own, e.g. attahityapaipanno no para-hitya (acting in ones own interest, not in the interestof others) or attan va akata sdhu (what is done byones own self is good).Atta can also mean ones ownperson, the personality, including body and mind, e.g.in attabhava (life), attapatilabha (birth in some form oflife).15

Pi has some terms which correspond to thepsychological notions of traits. For example, the con-cept of nature or character is called carita.16 Usingthis term, we can speak of different types of persons.


15/70

13

For example, we may describe a person as rga-carita(greedy-natured), dosa-carita (hateful-natured), moha-carita (dull-natured), saddh-carita (faithful-natured),buddhi-carita (intelligent-natured), and vitakka-carita(ruminating-natured) six types altogether. Differentpeople are at different stages of development, accord-ing to their kamma.

Buddhism does not deny that such conceptions ofindividuality have validity, but they have validity onlyin the conventional sense. Dr. Malalasekera writes:

Buddhism has no objection to the use of the words atta,or satta, orpuggala to indicate the individual as a whole,or to distinguish one person from another, where suchdistinction is necessary, especially as regards suchthings as memory and kamma which are private andpersonal and where it is necessary to recognize theexistence of separate lines of continuity (santna). But,

even so, these terms should be treated only as labels,binding-conceptions and conventions in language, as-sisting economy in thought and word and nothingmore. Even the Buddha uses them sometimes: Theseare worldly usages, worldly terms of communication,worldly descriptions, by which a Tathgata communi-cates without misapprehending them (D. I, 195f).17

Nyanatiloka adds to this idea when writing aboutthe term satta: This term, just like atta, puggala, jvaand all other terms denoting ego-entity, is to be con-sidered as a merely conventional term (vohra-vacana),not possessing any reality value.18

All of the various conceptions of psychology andreligion regarding a self or soul of any kind were in-


16/70

14

deed denied existence in the ultimate sense by theBuddha. But we may use terms such as self and ego todescribe a particular arrangement of the five khandhas(aggregates) which give the illusory appearance of anindividual. As Sister Vajir, an Arahant at the time ofthe 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.19

In conclusion, the Sayadaw U Slnanda has givenus lectures on the anatt doctrine in which he usesterms such as soul and self interchangeably. This is be-cause the doctrine ofanatt was taught by the Buddhafrom the point of view of the Fully Enlightened One, aview which saw that all things are anatt. It is with this

wisdom that the lectures are given.


17/70

15

Understanding Anatt

The anatt doctrine is one of the most importantteachings of Buddhism. It is the most distinctive

feature of Buddhism, for, as many scholars have rec-ognized, it makes Buddhism different from all otherreligions. Scholars write that all other religions acceptthe 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 orself.

Donald Watson writes: Of the worlds major reli-gions, only Buddhism denies or is agnostic about theexistence of a soul.20

Another scholar, Richard Kennedy, writes:

According to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, eachsoul will be judged at the end of the world. It is thesoul which will determine whether the individual ispunished by hell or rewarded by eternal life in heav-en. Buddhism teaches that there is no such thing as asoul or true, permanent self.21

The Encyclopedia Americana writes: In Buddhism

there is no perduring or surviving self such as the t-man. Meditation leads to the awareness that the idea ofself, or tman, is mere illusion.22

In A Dictionary of Comparative Religion, the teach-ing of the existence of the soul is traced through everymajor religion throughout history: primitive animistic,Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Hebrew, Greek religion in


18/70

16

Homeric, Orphic, Pythagorean, and Platonic versions;Hindu, Zoroastrian, Chinese, Muslim, Japanese, andChristian. But, as the writers state, Buddhism, in itsclassic form, rejected the Hindu concept of atman asthe essential, immortal self.23

As we can see, Buddhism is the only major reli-gion that denies the existence of a metaphysical entitywhich is usually called a self or soul.

Buddhism is divided into two major schools,Theravda and Mahyna, which have, in some cas-

es, major differences. But both schools adhere to theanatt doctrine. H. von Glasenapp writes: The nega-tion of an imperishable tman is the common charac-teristic of all dogmatic systems of the Lesser as wellas the Great Vehicle [meaning here Theravda andMahyna, respectively], and, there is, therefore, noreason to assume that Buddhist tradition which is in

complete agreement on this point has deviated fromthe Buddhas original teaching.24

Although the anatt doctrine is so important, sodistinctive, and supposedly so universally accepted byBuddhists, it is still the most misunderstood, the mostmisinterpreted, and the most distorted of all the teach-ings of the Buddha. Some scholars who have written

on Buddhism had a great respect for the Buddha, likedHis teachings, revered Him and honored Him, butthey could not imagine that such a profound thinkerhad actually denied the existence of a soul.

Consequently, they have tried to find apparent loop-holes in the teachings through which they have tried toinsert the affirmation ofattby the Buddha. For exam-


19/70

17

ple, two modern scholars, Ananda K. Coomaraswamyand I. B. Horner, in their book, The Living Thoughts ofGotama the Buddha, have devoted much of the book tothe idea that Buddha taught a doctrine of two selves,the great Self, spelled with an upper case S to signifythe spiritual self or soul, and a small self, the person-al ego, spelled with a lower case s. They claim thatBuddha denied only this personal self or ego when Hespoke ofanatt. These scholars base their ideas on mis-translations of Pi terms, and later in these lectures

I will devote considerable time to analyzing the Pipassages 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 thatthe Zen doctrine of Self or One Mind is not in reality

thetman of the Hindu Brahmins:The doctrine oftman has always been the cen-tre of Buddhist controversy. There is no doubtthat Gautama Buddha made it one of the centralpoints of his teaching, but the interpretations ofit are various. The Theravdins interpret it not

only as no self, but also as no Self, therebydenying man both an ego and all participationin something of the nature of Universal Spiritor the One Mind. The Mahynists accept theinterpretation of egolessness, holding that thereal Self is none other than that indescrib-able non-entity, the One Mind; something


20/70

18

far less of an entity than the tman of theBrahmins.25

The Universal Spirit, One Mind, and Self

which Blofeld finds within the anatt doctrine are re-ally antman, an atta, of a finer substance, less of anentity, as he says, but nevertheless an tman. Theseideas of atta are therefore in conflict with the anattdoctrine of the Buddha. As mentioned before, mostMahynists accept the doctrine of anatt, but laterschools of Mahyna, such as the Chinese Zen of

which Blofeld writes, may have drifted into a soul-liketheory.

The controversy over the anatt doctrine seems tobe based on a deep fear of the denial of the existenceof a soul. People are often very attached to their lives,so they like to believe that there exists something ever-lasting, eternal, and permanent inside them. Whensomeone comes along and tells them that there isnothing permanent in them, nothing by which theywill continue eternally, such as a soul, they may be-come frightened. They wonder what will become ofthem 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 fright-ened and confused by the anatt doctrine.26

Vacchagotta was an ascetic who once went tothe Buddha to discuss some important matters. Heasked the Buddha, Is there atta? Buddha remainedsilent. Vacchagotta then asked, Is there no atta? ButBuddha again remained silent. After Vacchagotta went


21/70

19

away, Buddha explained to Ananda why he had re-mained silent. Buddha explained that He knew thatVacchagotta was very confused in his thinking aboutatta, and that if He were to respond that there does ex-ist atta, then He would be expounding the eternalistview, the eternal soul theory, with which He did notagree. But if He were to say that atta did not exist, thenVacchagotta might think that He was expounding theannihilationist view, the view that a person is nothing but a psychophysical organism which will be com-

pletely annihilated at death.Since this latter view denies kamma, rebirth, anddependent origination, Buddha did not agree withthis. Buddha teaches, in fact, that people are rebornwith paisandhi, relinking consciousness, a rebirthconsciousness which does not transmigrate from theprevious existence, but which comes into existence by

means of conditions included in the previous existen-ces, conditions such as kamma. Thus a reborn person isnot the same as the one who has died, nor is the rebornperson entirely different from the one who has died.Most importantly, no metaphysical entity, no soul, andno kind of spiritual self continues from one existenceto another in Buddhas teaching.

But this teaching was too difficult for Vacchagotta,and Buddha wanted to wait for a time whenVacchagotta would mature in intellect. Buddha wasnot a computer who gave automatic answers to everyquestion. He taught according to the circumstancesand temperaments of the people, for their benefit. As ithappened, Vacchagotta advanced spiritually through


22/70

20

Vipassan meditation, which allowed him to realizethe suffering, impermanent, and no-soul nature of allthings, and he later became anArahant. Unfortunately,this story is used by some scholars to try to prove thatBuddha did not really deny the existence ofatta.27

Let us now examine the ideas contained in theterm atta, Before Buddha appeared in this world,Brhmaism, which was later to be called Hinduism,prevailed in India. Brhmaism teaches the doctrine ofthe existence ofatta (in Sanskrit, tman), which is usu-

ally translated as soul or self. When Buddha appeared,He claimed that there is no tman. This doctrine wasso important that Buddha proclaimed it only five daysafter His first sermon, the sermon on the Four NobleTruths. The five disciples who heard that first sermon became streamwinners (Sotpannas) persons whohave attained the first stage of enlightenment. Five

days later, Buddha assembled the five disciples andtaught them the anatt doctrine. By the end of thatSutta, all five became Arahants, persons who have at-tained the highest stage of enlightenment.

What is this atta which the Buddha negated? Theword anatt is a combination of two words: an (< na)and atta.An means not or no, and atta is usually trans-

lated as soul or self(sometimes with upper case S tosignify a spiritual entity). But atta has a wide range ofmeanings, which we will now examine. These termsare discussed in two famous books of Hindu scrip-ture, the Upanishads28 and the Bhagavad Gita29. Manyviews of atta are found in the Buddhist BrahmajlaSutta30, which I will discuss later.


23/70

21

Atta is the inner core of anything. The inner coreof a tree is the hardest part and thus the core of some-thing can imply permanency. The core may also implythe best part of something, the part which is the ess-ence, the part which is pure, real, beautiful, and endur-ing. The idea ofatta as the core of things is found in theChandogya and Brihadaranyaka Upanishads.31

Another implication of atta is that of authority.Authority is the ability to make others follow orders. Ifanything is to be called atta, it must have the power to

exercise authority over the nature of things, as statedin the KenaUpanishad.32 In addition, atta is not subjectto any other authority: it is the highest authority (saya-vas) one who is his own master. It is like a lord orowner (sm). Atta is the lord of ourselves.33 It is dis-tinct from ourselves and abides in ourselves. It is thedweller (nivs) which is not part of the five aggregates.

Atta is also the agent of action, a doer (kraka) and it isatta which actually does everything, good or bad.Attais that by which we act, that by which we enjoy or suf-fer. In ignorance we identify ourselves with the bodyand ego, forgetting that we are really atta. When wedo something, it is really at the command ofatta, butwe ignorantly believe that we as individuals actu-

ally control our lives. Atta is thus a director and anexperiencer.34

Another meaning ofatta is that of soul, a spiritualentity inside of all people. The soul, called tman inHindu scriptures, is the individual self, and it is identi-cal with the Universal Self, the Supreme Being, calledBrahman. tman resides in everyone and in every liv-


24/70

22

ing being. Like Brahman, tman is eternal. When the body dies, tman moves to another body and makesthat body its new home. In this way, it moves fromone body to another, discarding the worn-out bodyand taking a new one. Liberation is, according toHinduism, the realization that tman is identical withthe Universaltman or Brahman, or that the individualtman is part ofBrahman35.

tman is eternal no one can kill or wound tman.In the Bhagavad Gita, Krisha, one incarnation of the

god Vishu, has this in mind when he instructs thegreat warrior, Arjuna, to go into battle. Arjuna was atfirst reluctant to go into battle in order to fight againsthis own cousins, but Krisha tells him that no weaponcan cut tman, no fire can burn tman. Even if you killsomeone, you kill only the body:

If any man thinks he slays, and if another thinkshe is slain, neither knows the way of truth, TheEternal in man cannot kill; the Eternal in mancannot die. He is never born, and he never dies.He is in Eternity: he is forever more.36

Krisha then urges Arjuna to do his honorableduty as a member of the warrior caste and go into

battle, which Arjuna does.Buddha denied the tman theory. According to

Buddha, there is nothing we can call an inner corewhich is eternal and blissful. There is also nothing wecan call upon to exercise authority over the nature ofthings. In Buddhism, there is no doer apart from doing,and no experiencer apart from the experiencing. There


25/70

23

is nothing or no one which is omnipotent becauseeverything is at the mercy of the constant creation anddissolution of conditioned things.

Buddha taught that there are only five aggregates(khandhas): (1) corporeality (material process, or form);(2) feelings; (3) perceptions; (4) mental formations; and(5) consciousness. Less specifically, we may say thatthere are only two groups of phenomena in this exist-ence: mind and matter, nma and rpa. Apart frommind and matter, there exists nothing whatsoever

that we can call atta. The only thing that exists outsideof the realm of nma and rpa is the unconditioned(asakhata) Nibbna, Absolute Truth, but, as I will dis-cuss later in these lectures, even Nibbna is anatt.

Buddha taught that, for us, there are only the fiveaggregates. We are a compound of five aggregates, andafter we analyze and observe them one by one with

the deep insight of meditation, we will realize thatthere remains nothing: no soul, no self, apart from theaggregates. The combination of the five aggregates iswhat we call a person, a being, a man, or a woman.There is nothing apart from the five aggregates cor-poreality, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, andconsciousness which are interacting and dependent

upon each other. No director, no doer, no experiencer,and no essence can be found. Atta is merely an ideawhich has no corresponding reality whatsoever.

In the suttas37, we find a story of a very famousascetic-scholar named Saccaka. One day he heardthat Buddha taught the anatt doctrine. Since he wasa very sharp debater, he decided that he would go to


26/70

24

the Buddha and convince Him that the anatt doctrinewas wrong. He was very confident; he claimed that ifhe were to debate with a stone pillar, that pillar wouldsweat from fear. He claimed that, just as a strong mantakes a goat and flings it around his shoulders, so hewould take hold of Gotama and fling Him around indebate.

Saccaka and his followers went to the Buddha,and there exchanged greetings. He asked Buddha toexplain the doctrines He taught. Buddha replied that

He taught anatt. Saccaka countered, No. There is atta.The five aggregates are atta. Buddha replied, Do youreally think that rpa (corporeality) is atta? As it hap-pened, Saccaka was very ugly, and if he said that cor-poreality was atta, then Buddha could counter, Thenwhy dont you make yourself more handsome? ThusSaccaka was forced to say that rpa is not atta. Here we

can see Buddha striking down several characteristicsthat are attributed to atta. If Saccaka had an atta, hecould call upon it to exercise authority and power inorder to change his appearance. After all, atta is identi-cal to Brahman, the supreme ruler, the infinite, omnipo-tent creator and source of all things, as explained inthe Bhagavad Gita.38

But, according to Buddha, there exist only the fiveaggregates, the five khandhas, and these are not attabecause they are subject to the laws of impermanence,suffering, and no-soul. Rpa (material form) is not atta;it is not master and ruler of itself, and it is subject toaffliction. The other khandhas feeling, perception,


27/70

25

mental formations, and consciousness are also sub-ject to the same laws. Saccaka was therefore defeated.

Although it may be easy to understand that rpa(material form) is not atta, some people may find itdifficult to understand why the other khandhas feel-ing, perception, mental formations, and consciousness which we may summarize as simply nma (mind) donot constitute an entity which can be called atta. Afterall, many people believe that mind and soul are identi-cal or interrelated, and they define mind and/or soul

as that part of a person which gives life and conscious-ness to the physical body, and they further believe that,as such, it is the spiritual and psychological center ofthe person.

But, according to the Buddha, nma is not atta forthe same reasons that rpa is not atta: nma is equallysubject to the laws of impermanence, suffering, and

no-soul, as we shall study further when we analyzetheAnattalakkhaa Sutta in depth. Buddha treats nmaand rpa equally, and they are mutually dependentupon 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, andappear full of life and activity; just so are mindand body, as such, something empty, lifelessand inactive; but by means of their mutualworking together, this mental and bodily com-bination may move about, stand up, and appearfull of life and activity.39


28/70

26

Furthermore, we must remember that nma-rpaor khandhas are merely abstract classifications made bythe Buddha, and, as such, they have no real existenceas groups. That is, there is never the functioning of anentire entity or group known as corporeality or feel-ing or perception or mental formations or conscious-ness, but only the functioning of individual represen-tatives of these groups. For example, with one unitof consciousness, only one single kind of feeling can be associated. Two different units of perception can-

not arise at the same moment, and only one kind ofconsciousness, for example seeing consciousness, canarise at one time. A smaller or larger number of mentalformations can arise with every state of consciousness.The groups never arise as a totality; only constituentsor bits from a certain group can arise depending onconditions. There are no integrally functioning groups

which can be called a self or a mind.Moreover, the single constituents of these apparent

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

Another way to study the question of why nma isnot atta is simply to go back to the definition ofkhand-has given by the Buddha in Sayutta Nikya, XX, 56.

Here we will see that the four khandhas, which can beclassified simply as nma (mind) are in no way to beunderstood as an abiding mind substance or as any-thing that can be called atta. Rather, the khandhas arecompletely interdependent, and the constituents ofeach group condition the arising of the others. Thereis no self-existing, abiding entity in any part of the


29/70

27

following definition, but only constituents which mu-tually condition each other and arise only when theyinteract:

What, 0 monks, is the corporeality-group?The four primary elements and corporealitydepending thereon.

What, 0 monks, is the feeling-group?There are six classes of feeling: due to visualimpression, to sound impression, to odour im-pression, to taste impression, to bodily impres-

sion, and to mind impression.What, 0 monks, is the perception-group?

There are six classes of perception: perceptionof visual objects, of sounds, of odours, of tastes,of bodily impressions, and of mental impres-sions.

What, 0 monks, is the group of mental for-mations?There are six classes of volitional states: withregard to visual objects, to sounds, to odours,to tastes, to bodily impressions, and to mindobjects.

What, 0 monks, is the consciousness-group?

There are six classes of consciousness: eye-con-sciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-conscious-ness, tongue-consciousness, body-conscious-ness, and mind-consciousness.

Based on the above definitions, it is easy to see thatnothing which can be called atta can be found in theworkings ofrpa or nma.


30/70

28

Still another way in which the nature ofnma andrpa is analyzed is to be found in the Abhidhamma,which is highly recommended for anyone who wantsto understand Buddhism thoroughly. This is the mostcomprehensive and analytical study of all phenomenagiven by the Buddha. Here Buddha analyzes nma andrpa into three groups of absolute realities, which are89 types of consciousness (cittas), 52 mental factors(cetasikas), and 28 material properties (rpa). Here too,there is no abiding mind substance or atta, but only the

interdependent workings of the constituents of thesegroups.


31/70

29

Misunderstanding Anatt

We will now discuss some of the attempts to placea doctrine of atta into Buddhism. Some schol-

ars have tried to, in the words of Dr. Walpola Rahula,smuggle the idea of atta into the teachings of theBuddha.40

Let us now see how two scholars, Ananda K.Coomaraswamy and I. B. Horner, already discussed

briefly, have mistranslated certain Pi terms to dem-onstrate that Buddha affirmed the existence of atta.They argue that Buddha did indeed claim that the fiveaggregates are not atta, but that He never directly de-nied the existence ofatta. The five aggregates are notatta, but there is something apart from the five aggre-gates that we can call atta, self or soul, these scholars

claim.41

Whenever Coomaraswamy and Horner seethe word atta, they try to imagine that it means eternalselfor soul.

One of the passages they point to is found inDhammapada (verse 160): Att hi attano ntho. Theytranslate it as Self is the lord of self.42They say thatit means that the big Self is the lord of the little self.

Actually, it means, One is ones own lord or refuge,or, One is ones own support. The second line of theverse reads, Ko hi ntho paro siy? or, Who else canbe the lord or refuge? In Pi, the word atta can meanself, soul, or eternal self, in the Hindu sense, or it can sim-ply be a part of a reflexive pronoun like himself,yourself,or myself. Thus when Buddha says Att hi attano ntho,


32/70

30

ko hi natho paro siy? meaning One is ones own lordor refuge; who else can be the lord or refuge, it is clearthat atta means oneself, not soul. Buddha urges people torely on themselves, on their own effort, and not to relyon others in their spiritual practice.

Another passage which is misinterpreted in the book by Coomaraswamy and Horner is from the Mahparinibbna Sutta43: Attadp viharatha attasaraanaasara. The meaning is, Dwell having your-self as an island, having yourself as a refuge and not

anyone else as a refuge. Here also they interpret attato mean soul or eternal self.44aThey claim that Buddhawas instructing us to make the soul our island or ref-uge. But in the next line, Buddha says, Dhammadpviharatha dhammasara anaasara, which means,

Dwell having the Dhamma (Buddhas teachings) asan island, having the Dhamma as a refuge, nothing

else as a refuge. Buddha is instructing his followersto rely on their own effort and on the teachings, espe-cially as He was soon to be gone from this earth. Theidea ofatta as soul is completely foreign to this passage.Moreover, Buddha went on to say, How is the monkto dwell making himself an island? He then wenton to describe the practice of the four foundations

of mindfulness. The Buddha really meant that oneshould make Satipahna meditation (contemplation ofthe body, feelings, mind, and dhamma objects) onesrefuge. There is no mention of soul whatsoever.

Another passage Coomaraswamy and Hornerpoint to is the story in which Buddha spoke to someprinces. There were thirty princes who were cousins


33/70

31

of King Pasenadi of Kosala. Twenty-nine of them hadwives, but one did not.

One day, they went to a park to amuse themselves,and they hired a woman for the unwed prince. Whenthey were drunk and having fun, the hired womantook all of the valuables and ran away with them.They looked for her and met the Buddha. They askedBuddha if He had seen her and He said, What do youthink, young men? Which is better for you? To searchafter the woman or to search after yourselves (attna

gaveseyytha)? They replied that it would be better tosearch after themselves, and so Buddha told them tosit down and listen to a Dhamma talk.44b

Coomaraswamy and Horner interpret the wordatta in that passage to mean higher Self or soul,45 andthey want it to mean that Buddha told the princes tosearch after atta. But Buddha is telling the princes to

turn away from chasing after worldly pleasures andto practice the self-discipline of the Noble Path. In thatDhamma talk, Buddha spoke about giving (dna), moralconduct (sla), the celestial world (sagga), the peril, vani-ty, and depravity of sense pleasures (kamna dnava,etc.), and the advantages of renunciation (nekkhammenisasa). There is no mention whatsoever of search-

ing for a soul, for atta.Another passage mistranslated by Coomaraswamy

and Horner is one found in Visuddhimagga: buddhatt Buddho.46 They translate it as, Buddha is awakenedSelf.47 But the correct translation of the Pi is, He isthe Buddha because he knows or he has known. Theword buddhatt is not a compound ofbuddha and atta,


34/70

32

but one word, buddha, with the suffix -tta combinedwith the ablative case termination, , which means be-cause of. The word buddhatt therefore means because ofthe state of being one who knows.

It would be better to say that one does not believein the anatt doctrine and that Buddha was wrongabout it than to try to say that Buddha taught a religionwith atta in it. It is not accurate to say that Buddha didnot deny atta. In fact, there are many places in the Picanon where atta is denied by Buddha. For example,

Buddha once said, I do not see a soul theory which, ifaccepted, does not lead to the arising of grief, lamenta-tion, suffering, distress, and tribulations. Buddha alsosaid, Since neither self nor anything pertaining to selfcan truly be found, is not the speculative view thatthe universe is atta wholly and completely foolish?48Buddha teaches that belief in atta is a wrong view (dit-

thi or miccha-ditthi) which will lead to misery. Wrongviews must be rejected because they are a source ofwrong and evil aspirations and conduct.

InMajjhima Nikya49a, Buddha describes the beliefin atta as an idea which leads to selfishness and pride:

The Perfect One is free from any theory (dihigata), forthe Perfect One has seen what corporeality is, and how

it arises and passes away. He has seen what feelingperception mental formations consciousness are,and how they arise and pass away. Therefore I say thatthe Perfect One has won complete deliverance throughthe extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejectionand casting out of all imaginings and conjectures, ofall inclinations to the vainglory of I and mine.49b


35/70

33

In the famous Brahmajla Sutta which is recom-mended for those who want to study an explanation ofwrong views, Buddha describes and classifies all con-ceivable wrong views and speculations about reality.One of those wrong views is the belief that there ex-ists an eternal self. Buddha says of this view: Therein,bhikkhus, when those recluses and brahmins who areeternalists proclaim on four grounds the self and theworld to be eternal that is only the agitation and vac-illation of those who do not know and do not see; that

is only the agitation and vacillation of those who areimmersed in craving.50

Coomaraswamy and Horner argue that Buddhasdenial ofatta refers only to the phenomenal self, andthat His denial is really an affirmation of what theycall the Great Self (mahatta).51 They argue that Buddhastated that the five aggregates are not atta, but that He

never categorically stated that there is no atta, no Self.52

They claim that Buddha was only directing us not tosee the real Self in the personal ego a view identicalto the Hindu view. They reason that Buddhas denialof certain things being atta indicates that He affirmeda true atta of a different nature. When Buddha said,

This is not atta, these scholars insert the following

argument: But a moments consideration of the logicof the words will show that they assume the reality ofa Self that is not any one or all of the things that aredenied of it.53

But let us say, for the sake of argument, that I havefive animal horns here. If I say, None of these hornsis the horn of a rabbit, does it mean that there exists


36/70

34

somewhere else or in another form such a thing as ahorn of a rabbit? No. A horn of a rabbit is just a desig-nation, an abstraction, without any corresponding real-ity. Similarly, Buddha often said, This is not atta. Thatis not atta. Nothing here is atta. Does that indicate thatBuddha means that there exists somewhere somethingthat can be called atta? No.

I will conclude this section by explaining a very im-portant statement found in Patisambhidmagga54 and in

Majjhima Nikya55: Sabbe sakhr anicc; sabbe sakhr

dukkh (not in M.N.); sabbe dhamm anatt. The firstsentence means, All conditioned things are imperma-nent. The second means, All conditioned things aresuffering. The third sentence, however, is different.Here, Buddha does not use the word sakhr, but Heuses dhamma instead. Dhamma here means all thingswithout exception. So the third sentence means, All

things, conditioned or unconditioned, are anatt, arevoid of self and soul. This means that even Nibbna,which is asakhata, unconditioned, is not atta or is voidofatta. This statement unequivocally denies atta of anykind, even in Ultimate Truth and Enlightenment, evenin Nibbna.


37/70

35

Impermanence, Suffering and No-Soul

The doctrine ofanatt is very important to Buddhists.No realization of Truth can occur without the

knowledge of the anatt (no-soul) nature of things. Torealize Truth, one must practice meditation, and dur-ing meditation, the knowledge of anatt must arise.One needs the knowledge ofanicca, dukkha, and anatt,that is, the knowledge of impermanence, of suffering,

and of the no-soul nature of things. Until one expe-riences these characteristics in meditation, not justintellectually, but directly, one cannot make progress.Vipassan (Insight) meditation deals directly with thesecharacteristics. These characteristics run through allstages ofVipassan. I will discuss Vipassan later, butfirst we must explain what conceals the three charac-

teristics from perception during meditation.Impermanence is concealed by continuity. If one

looks at a candle flame, one may think that it is thesame flame from moment to moment. Actually, theflame is constantly disappearing and arising againevery second. We have the illusion of one flame be-cause of the idea and appearance of continuity.

The nature of suffering is concealed by changinginto different postures. When we are sitting and feelsome pain, we change posture and the pain goes away.Actually, we are changing postures constantly at everymoment of our lives, but this is not apparent to us. Themoment a tiny unpleasant sensation is felt, we changepostures. The characteristic of no-soul is concealed by


38/70

36

the perception that things are compact and solid. Welook at things and at ourselves as solid, compact things.Until we can break through the false perception thatwe are compact, we will not see the no-soul nature ofthings.

That is why there are meditational practices inwhich the four elements, earth, water, fire, and air arecontemplated. Actually, the primary qualities of thoseelements are contemplated: earth is characterized byhardness or softness, water by fluidity or cohesion, fire

by heat, and air by extending or supporting. If we canhave the insight into phenomena as being composedof elements and their characteristics, then the idea ofcompactness will be weakened. We think that we aresubstantial, but if we have insight into our real nature,the nature of being composed of nma and rpa, ormore precisely, of elements and forces mutually de-

pendent and interacting with each other, then the ideaof a coherent, abiding, substantial self is weakened,and nothing we can call a self is found.56

The anatt doctrine is of primary importance toa Buddhist. In fact, anatt can only be understoodwhen there is a Buddha or a Buddhas teaching in theworld. No one but a Buddha can penetrate into the

anatt nature of things because only through Vipassanmeditation, discovered by Buddha, can insight intoanatt be realized. Even though great and profoundthinkers are around, they still cannot penetrate intoanatt, and other kinds of meditation, such as Samatha(Tranquility), may give you psychic powers or higher


39/70

37

states of consciousness, but they cannot lead you to theinsight into anatt.

As I mentioned earlier, the belief in a soul wasdescribed by the Buddha as a major cause of suffer-ing. The belief in atta of any kind, whether belief ina personal ego or in a spiritual self, is the cause of alldukkhas in this round of rebirths; the belief in atta isthe root of greed, hatred, and delusion. Atheists maynot believe in a spiritual soul, but they serve the de-sires of their personal ego and thus may commit deeds

of greed, hatred, and delusion. The idea ofatta is veryhard to conquer, but still we must try because realiza-tion ofanatt is the way to deliverance, while the per-sistence of the idea of atta is a major cause of misery.One cannot overemphasize the importance of anatt,as Nyanatiloka explains:

Whosoever has not penetrated this imperson-ality of all existence, and does not comprehendthat in reality there exists only this continuallyself-consuming process of arising and passingbodily and mental phenomena, and that thereis no separate ego-entity within or withoutthis process, he will not be able to understand

Buddhism, i.e., the teaching of the Four NobleTruths in the right light. He will think thatit is his ego, his personality, that experiencessuffering, his personality that performs goodand evil actions and will be reborn accordingto these actions, his personality that will en-


40/70

38

ter Nibbna, his personality that walks on theEightfold Path.57

The words of Nyanatiloka bring up a very impor-

tant point often asked about Nibbna: In the absenceof a soul, who or what is it that enters Nibbna? This isa difficult subject. From what has been said so far inthis lecture, we can certainly say that there is no attaor self which realizes Nibbna. What realizes Nibbnais insight-wisdom, Vipassan-panna. It is not the prop-erty of a personal or universal self, but is rather a

power developed through meditative penetration ofphenomena.

Yet another even more difficult question is: Whathappens to a Tathgata (here in the sense of one whohas realized Nibbna) after death? Once again, Buddhagave his answer without recourse to any kind of spiri-tual entity such as atta. Buddha essentially replied thatno words could possibly describe what happens to aTathgata after death: A Tathgata released from whatis called body etc., is profound, immeasurable, hard tofathom, like the great ocean. It does not fit the case tosay that he is reborn or not reborn, or reborn and notreborn, or neither reborn nor not reborn. Then He goes

on to say, after being questioned further: Profound isthis doctrine, hard to see, hard to comprehend, calm,excellent, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, intel-ligible only to the wise.58 Thus Nibbna, the AbsoluteNoble Truth, the extinction of all continuity and becoming, the Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated,Unformed.59 Reality is affirmed without reference to


41/70

39

atta. Likewise, the Arahant who realizes Nibbna doesso by means of a flash of insight which destroys for-ever all illusions of the existence ofatta. I will concludewith some well-written words from Nyanatiloka:

One cannot too often and too emphaticallystress the fact that not only for the actual real-ization of the goal of Nibbna, but also for atheoretical understanding of it, it is an indis-pensable preliminary condition to grasp fullythe truth of anatt, the egolessness and insub-

stantiality of all forms of existence. Withoutsuch an understanding, one will necessarilymisconceive Nibbna according to ones eithermaterialistic or metaphysical leanings eitheras annihilation of an ego, or an eternal stateof existence into which an ego or self enters orwith 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;Nibbna is, but not the man who enters it;The path is, but no traveler on it is seen.60


42/70

40

Direct Experience of Anatt

The anatt doctrine is extremely difficult to compre-hend. One can speculate or ponder about it that is

one kind of knowledge, acquired by listening to a lec-ture or by reading. One may also ponder over it moredeeply in contemplation. But one can only really pen-etrate into it during Vipassan meditation.

When yogis practice, they keep themselves aware

of everything. When they see something, there are twothings: the mind which sees and the object seen; apartfrom these, there is nothing. More specifically, seeingis a process which depends on four things: the eye, thevisible object, light, and attention to the object. If oneof these conditions is lacking, no seeing occurs. If onedoes not have eyes, no atta can make one see. Only

when all conditions are met does seeing consciousnessarise. No agent like atta is a part of this.

Likewise, when yogis note themselves thinkingduring meditation, they note thinking, thinking,thinking, and they find only thinking and the mindwhich 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 thatthinking is occurring. In this process, yogis can seethe impermanence of mind and thought: one thoughtcomes, then goes; another thought comes and goes,and this goes on and on. A new thought comes everymoment, arising and disappearing. They directly seethe impermanence of thought. They can also notice


43/70

41

the impermanence of material things, such as physi-cal pain, by noting the arising and disappearing ofthe pain in the body. They can see that all things areoppressed by rise and fall, by arising and disappear-ing. This oppression of phenomena by arising and dis-appearing is the characteristic ofdukkha (suffering).

Unwisely, we desire for things to be permanent,yet we realize that we have no power to make imper-manent things permanent; we realize that we haveno control or authority over things. No inner core, no

atta, can be found in any observed phenomena. Yogiscan discover this anatt nature of things in Vipassanmeditation, because gradually they bring awarenessand concentration to a high degree and then they havepenetrative knowledge into the true nature of mindand body.


44/70

42

Analysis of the Discourse on theCharacteristic of No-Soul

Let us now study in more detail the Sutta whichteaches the doctrine ofanatt, known as theAnatta-lakkhaa Sutta, The Discourse on the Characteristic ofNo-Soul. This was the second sermon of the Buddha.

At the end of the first sermon, the VenerableKoaa became a Sotpanna (a person at the firststage of enlightenment) and then, according to theCommentaries, for example, the Commentary onVinaya, the other four disciples became Sotpannas, oneon each of the four following days.

On the first day after the full-moon day in July, themonk Vappa became a Sotpanna; on the second day,

Bhaddiya; on the third day, Mahnma; and on thefourth day, Assaji. After they became Sotpannas, theyall asked Buddha for ordination. Buddha ordainedeach of them by calling to them, Come monks. Onthe fifth day after the full-moon day, the Buddhaassembled them and preached to them this discourseon no-soul.

This discourse61

is even shorter than the first ser-mon on the Four Noble Truths. It was delivered at theDeer Park at Benares. Buddha called the disciples bysaying, Monks, and they replied, Venerable Sir,and then the Buddha started.

We can divide the Sutta into five parts. In the firstpart, Buddha says that the five aggregates are not atta,


45/70

43

not self or soul. In the second section, Buddha asks themonks if the five aggregates are permanent or imper-manent, pleasurable or painful, and then He arrives atthe conclusion that the nature of the five aggregatesis anatt. In the third section, Buddha teaches that thefive aggregates should not be taken as a soul or self oras belonging to oneself. In the fourth section, Buddhaexplains briefly the progress of Vipassan medita-tion. The last section records that all five monks hadattained the stage ofArahant. By the end of the Sutta,

all five monks became Arahants, which is the higheststage of enlightenment.Buddha says, Bhikkhus, form is anatt, (form is not

soul or self). Were form soul, then this form would notlead to affliction, and one could have it of form: Let myform be thus; let my form be not thus. And since formis 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 Pi word rpa is translated asform. The wordform is here used in the sense of material properties orjust matter. The reader may recall that the first of thefive aggregates is form or corporeality. But form can-not be atta because it is subject to affliction.tta (self orsoul) must have the meaning which we discussed ear-

lier: that ofvasavattana, something which has the powerand autonomy to change the nature of things. No onelikes pain and affliction in the body, but it cannot bechanged. If form were atta, people could abolish pain,disease, and ugliness by merely wishing. But there isno core or director or soul inside or outside of peoplewhich has the power to accomplish such actions.


46/70

44

Buddha considered the second aggregate and says:Feeling is not soul. Were feeling soul, then this feelingwould not lead to affliction, and one could have it offeeling: Let my feeling be thus; let my feeling be notthus. Then Buddha takes the third, fourth, and fifthaggregates: Perception is not soul. Mental forma-tions are not soul. Consciousness is not soul. Wereconsciousness soul, then this consciousness wouldnot lead to affliction, and one could have it of con-sciousness: Let my consciousness be thus; let my con-

sciousness be not thus. Consciousness cannot be atta because it is not under our control. Consciousness isunavoidably subject to afflictions to sorrow, depres-sion, and frustration. We cannot avoid being consciousof ugly sights, sounds, and sensations in the world, al-though we would like to arrange coming into contactwith pleasant sensual objects only.

Likewise, in meditation, we would like to be con-scious only of the meditation object, and we wouldlike to achieve stillness of mind and concentration, butthis is not easy, and we cannot will it. If consciousnesswere atta, we could will our consciousness to be stilland concentrated, and then we could proceed to thehigher 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 deter-mined by circumstances and conditions, conditionswhich are not under our control. Therefore, conscious-ness cannot be atta.

In the second section of the Sutta, Buddha asks themonks some questions, which they answer. Buddha


47/70

45

says: Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: Is form per-manent or impermanent? Since they were alreadySotpannas, they had already seen that the five aggre-gates are impermanent, suffering, and no-soul, so theyanswered, Impermanent, Venerable Sir. Now Buddhaasks, Is what is impermanent, painful, and subject tochange 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 comesinto being and then vanishes. It has a beginning and

an end. The monks had already realized by means ofVipassan knowledge that form is impermanent. Theyhad already seen the three marks of impermanence,which are the three phases of existence: arising, con-tinuation, and dissolution.

Another way to state this process is to call it non-existence after having been in existence, in Pi hutv

abhvato. Buddha then proceeds to explain that what-ever is impermanent is also painful. The mark of pain(dukkha) is constant oppression by rise and fall, by aris-ing and dissolution. This can be seen during medita-tion, when yogis take thoughts as objects and lookat them closely. They see that the moment a thoughtis observed as an object, it disappears, and another

thought takes its place. As meditators observe veryclosely with concentration, they see all objects in themind arising and disappearing constantly, and thisis seen as a kind of oppression by arising and disap-pearing. Phenomena are called oppressed by rise andfall because nothing is ever at peace; everything ismenaced by an endless flux. In this sense, whatever is


48/70

46

impermanent is dukkha. Dukkha means more than justpainful. Dukkha also comes from our desire for per-manence. Dukkha means difficult to bear mentally andphysically, and thus we call the impermanence of allphenomena dukkha (suffering).

In the third part of Buddhas questioning, He asks,Is that which is impermanent and painful fit to becalled mine, I, my self or soul? Buddha is here lead-ing the monks to the discovery ofanatt. Is somethingthat is disappearing fit to be called atta? No. From anicca

(impermanence) to dukkha (suffering), and finally toanatt (no-soul) the monks are led.Let us review again the processes which hide im-

permanence, suffering, and no-soul. We, as unenlight-ened people, fail to see impermanence because we donot see the arising and disappearing of things. We aretricked by continuity, which hides the nature of imper-

manence. We look at things or at consciousness and seethem as continuous. In order to see impermanence, wemust observe closely the arising and disappearing ofphenomena. We must penetrate, by means of concen-tration and insight developed in meditation, throughthe impression of continuity, which acts as a cover ofimpermanence. Let us think of a ring of fire. Someone

has a torch and twirls it to create an impression of acircle of fire. But we know that there is really no ringof fire; it is just the impressions of individual positionsof the fire at different places and at different times. Butour mind takes the impressions as something continu-ous; rather, our mind connects the impressions and wedeceive ourselves.


49/70

47

If we could take a moving picture of the processand watch it at a slow speed, we would see the indi-vidual parts of the sequence of the apparent ring offire. We would only see light at different places andnot a circle. If we cannot pinpoint the components ofthings in order to see them arising and disappearing,we will continue to see things as whole entities. Letus note here that impermanence in this context meansmomentary impermanence. If we drop a cup whichbreaks, we say that it is impermanent. Or if a person

dies, we say that the person is impermanent. These ex-amples of impermanence are easy to see.But when we use that term in the context of

Vipassan meditation, we mean the constant arisingand disappearing of phenomena, and this can only beobserved during Vipassan meditation. Similarly, bydukkha, we do not mean ordinary pain or illness. We

mean the constant oppression by arising and disap-pearing, and this can also be seen only in Vipassanmeditation, 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 iswhy we instruct meditators to sit very still while they

are meditating. If yogis avoid changing postures often,they will achieve mindfulness and concentration, andthey will observe the nature ofdukkha directly.

Anatt, the no-soul nature of all things, is concealed by compactness. We usually see things as solid andcompact. We have to train our minds through Vipassanmeditation to look at and analyze that compactness


50/70

48

more closely. Just as a scientist uses a microscope tolook at things in a laboratory, so yogis must use con-centration in Vipassan meditation to penetrate into theunsubstantial, anatt nature of things. We must try tosee through the apparently solid mass of mental andphysical phenomena.

Regarding material things, we try to analyze andobserve them as earth, water, fire, air, and other mat-erial properties. Regarding mental phenomena, we tryto see that, for example, one phenomenon is contact, an-

other feeling, and another perception, although thesemay have been experienced very rapidly as only onemental event. Both mental and physical phenomenaare composed of only elements and forces, and thushave the nature of being anatt (unsubstantial). Thatis why we must try to observe everything very slowlyin meditation in order to see that phenomena are not

held together with a core, an atta.For example, all mental states and material proper-ties have their own functions. Contact has one func-tion, feeling another, and perception still another. Ifwe see these mental phenomena as one connectedwhole, we fail to see them as parts with specific func-tions, and we fail to see them as void of a central core,

atta. These mental states actually have different waysof taking objects and responding to them. Lobha (at-tachment) has one kind of response; dosa (hatred) an-other. We must see the individual differences of thesemental states. We need to analyze and observe deeplyto see that mind and matter have individual functionsand responses. On superficial observation and analy-


51/70


52/70

50

arrives at equanimity about formations. When Buddhauses the phrase finds estrangement, He is referringto all of the stages ofVipassan up to the very higheststage. After finding estrangement, passion fades outin one moment, the moment of enlightenment. That isthe moment known as Path consciousness, when somedefilements of the mind are eradicated.

Buddha continues, With the fading of passion, heis liberated. This means that the meditator has reachedthe two or three moments after Path consciousness

known as Fruition consciousness.When liberated, there is knowledge that he is lib-erated. Here the meditator reflects on the Path, onFruition, on Nibbna, on defilements destroyed, and ondefilements that are remaining.

He understands: Birth is exhausted. The holy lifehas been lived out. What need to be done is done. Of

this there is no more beyond. Like Buddha when Hebecame enlightened, the meditator says similar words.

The discourse ends: This is what the Blessed Onesaid. The Bhikkhus were glad, and they approvedHis words. Now during this utterance, the hearts ofthe Bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated fromtaints, through clinging no more. This means that

they had becomeArahants. By understanding the doc-trine ofanatt, they were now free of all fetters, defile-ments, and impurities. They had reached the higheststate of enlightenment. They had realized Nibbna andwere free from all rebirth.


53/70

51

Questions and Answers

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

A: Yes, it seems to be continuous and to last for a longtime, but actually the pain arises and disappearsat every moment. Because we cannot see it arisingevery moment, we think that it is one solid thing.

But when you practice meditation and keep notic-ing the pain, you will get concentration, and thenyou will come to see that there are gaps in thatpain. The same applies to sound, for example. Ifyou note sound in your mind as it occurs, you willget concentration, and you will come to experiencegaps in that sound: there is not really one continu-

ous sound.

A person once told me about this level of concen-tration, which he achieved while he was meditat-ing. Music was playing very loudly the whole night,so he could do nothing except concentrate on thesound by noting hearing, hearing, hearing. He

then achieved concentration and experienced themusic in small bits; in other words, he was able todetect gaps in what seemed to be one continuoussound. The elements of the music actually ariseand disappear every moment; nothing is ever thesame for even two tiny milliseconds.


54/70

52

Q: When I look at my own mental pain, I see a wholepattern of pain which I interpret according to psycho-logy, which I have studied. I think I have a pretty goodknowledge of what it is, but is that an obstacle to seeingthe nature of pain?

A: All that is needed to see the nature of pain is todwell with awareness on it, to make mental notesof it, and when you get enough concentration, youwill penetrate into the nature of pain and see thatit is impermanent.

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

A: That continuity is created only in our minds.Actually, there is no continuity, but there is the re-lationship of cause and effect. Many people ask: If

there is no tman to go to different worlds, how doBuddhists say that we have past and future lives?The answer is that mental and physical phenom-ena arise and disappear at every moment. Theyarise, and then disappear, and in their place, othernew phenomena arise. But the new phenomenathat arise are not totally different or new because

they have arisen due to some cause. Kamma causesthe next life, and that next life is not totally newand different; neither is it the same or identical.The cause causes the effect to arise, and that effectis not the result of just any cause, but of a specificcause: a strong relationship exists between thecause and the effect. The cause can impart some


55/70

53

of its similar qualities to the effect, impart in thesense of causing certain qualities to arise. In thisway, we have the notion of continuity, but actuallyeverything is newly arisen at every moment.

There is a Buddhist formula describing rebirth:neither that person nor another. This means a personis reborn in a future life, but that person is not theidentical person who died here; neither is that per-son reborn as a totally new person.

The commentaries, such as Visuddhimagga, XVII,

give some similies as examples. Suppose someoneshouts into a cave. When the sound comes back,it is not the original sound, but without the origi-nal sound, there can be no echo. Or, suppose onelights a candle from another candle. It cannot besaid that the flame has transferred itself to anothercandle. The flame in the second candle is not thesame as that in the first one, but it came into beingwith the help of the first candle. Similarly, a sealleaves an impression on paper. The impression isnot the same as the original seal, but neither is itunrelated to it.

We Buddhists do not accept permanence, but we

accept a connection as cause and effect. Cause andeffect go on and on, even in this lifetime, frommoment to moment. This gives a person the im-pression of continuity, the impression of being thesame person continually. Cause and effect go onand on throughout the lifespan until old age anddeath. But death is just a conventional term for the


56/70

54

disappearance of a certain psychophysical life pro-cess. But actually, we are dying and being rebornat every moment. Thoughts likewise die and comeinto being at every moment, as do physical proper-ties. Thus, even when we are living as we do now,we are dying, but we do not call it dying. We callit dying only when we come to the end of one life.Immediately after the end of this life, there is thenext 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 andon. One moment we call Sunday, and the next mo-ment we call Monday. Similarly, life and death andrebirth go on continually.

Q: How does rebirth cease?

A: It ceases only when a person cuts off the root ofthis process. The roots are lobha (attachment), dosa(anger) and moha (ignorance). The Arahants havecut off this process altogether, so for them, nofuture rebirth occurs. They have no desire for thelife-death process to continue.

It is like a lamp: when the oil is used up, the flamejust disappears. Desire is like the oil; when desireis cut off, there is no new becoming.

Q: But why does not an Arahant disappear at the momentof enlightenment?


57/70

55

A: That is because the present life, by which I meanthe present body and mind, is the result of pastkamma. Past kamma gives rise to this present life,and it must run its course. The Arahant does notacquire new kamma, but past kamma must have itseffect.


58/70

56

Anattalakkhaa Sutta

Thus have I heard: The Exalted One was at one timeresiding at Benares in the Deer Park at Isipatana.

There the Exalted One addressed the group of fivemonks saying: Monks, and they replied to Him,

Venerable Sir.

Then the Exalted One said:

Form (rpa or matter) is not soul (anatt). If form,monks, were soul, then this form would not lead toaffliction, and one would be able to say, Let my formbe thus. Let my form not be thus. But since form is notsoul, so it leads to affliction, and no one can say, Letmy form be thus. Let my form be not thus.

Feeling (vedan) is not soul. If feeling, monks, were

soul, then this feeling would not lead to affliction, andone would be able to say, Let my feeling be thus. Letmy feeling not be thus. But since feeling is not soul, soit leads to affliction, and no one can say, Let my feel-ing be thus. Let my feeling not be thus.

Perception (sa) is not soul. If perception, monks,

were soul, then this perception would not lead toaffliction, and one would be able to say, Let my per-ception be thus. Let my perception not be thus. Butsince perception is not soul, so it leads to affliction,and no one can say, Let my perception be thus. Let myperception not be thus.


59/70

57

Mental formations (sakhras) are not soul. If mentalformations, monks, were soul, then these mental for-mations would not lead to affliction, and one would beable to say, Let my mental formations be thus. Let mymental formations not be thus. But since mental for-mations are not soul, so they lead to affliction, and noone can say, Let my mental formations be thus. Let mymental formations not be thus.

Consciousness (via) is not soul. If consciousness,monks, were soul, then this consciousness would not

lead to affliction, and one would be able to say, Let myconsciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not bethus. But since consciousness is not soul, so it leads toaffliction, and no one can say, Let my consciousnessbe 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 (duk-kha) or satisfactory (sukha)?

Unsatisfactory, Venerable Sir.

Now what is impermanent, what is unsatisfactory,

what is transitory is it fit to be perceived thus: This ismine; this is I; this is my soul?

No, Venerable Sir.

Monks, what do you think? Is feeling permanent orimpermanent?


60/70

58

Impermanent, Venerable Sir.

Now what is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory orsatisfactory?


Now what is impermanent, what is unsatisfactory,what is transitory is it fit to be regarded thus: This ismine. This is I. This is my soul?

No, Venerable Sir.

Monks, what do you think? Is perception permanentor impermanent?





No, Venerable Sir.

Monks, what do you think? Are mental formationspermanent or impermanent.





61/70

59


No, Venerable Sir.Monks, what do you think? Is consciousness perma-nent or impermanent?





No, Venerable Sir.

So, monks, whatever perception, whether past, future,or present; whether gross or subtle; whether in one-self or in others; whether inferior or superior; whetherfar or near; must with right understanding of thingsas they really are, be regarded thus: 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; whetherin oneself or in others; whether inferior or superior;whether far or near; must, with right understanding ofthings as they really are, be regarded thus: This is notmine. This is not I. This is not my soul.


62/70

60

So, monks, whatever consciousness, whether past,future, or present; whether gross or subtle; whetherin oneself or in others; whether inferior or superior;whether far or near; must, with right understanding ofthings as they really are, be regarded thus: This is notmine. This is not I. This is not my soul.

Seeing thus, monks, the learned disciple of the NobleOnes becomes weary of form, weary also of feelings,weary also of perception, weary also of mental forma-tions, and weary also of consciousness. Being weary,

he becomes detached; being detached, he becomesfree; being free, the knowledge arises, I am free.

And he knows, Rebirth is no more; I have finishedpracticing the life of purity; done is what should bedone; of this there is no more beyond.

This is what the Exalted One said. Delighted, the group

of five monks rejoiced at the Exalted Ones words.And while this discourse was being given, the mindsof the group of five monks were liberated from defile-ments through clinging no more.


63/70

61

Bibliography

All references to Pi works are from the Pali Text Societys(England) editions.

Alphonso-Karkala, J. B. (Ed.) An Anthology ofIndian Literature

Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1971

Blofeld, J. (Ed.) The Zen Teaching of Huang Po

London: The Buddhist Society, 1958Bodhi, B. (Ed.) A Comprehensive Manual of

Abhidhamma

Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1993

Bodhi, B. (Ed.) The Discourse on the All-EmbracingNet of Views: The Brahmajala Sutta and its

CommentariesKandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1978

Brandon, S. G. F. (Ed.) A Dictionary ofComparative Religion

New York: Scribners, 1970

Chaplin, J. P. Dictionary of PsychologyNew York: Dell, 1975

Coomaraswamy, A. & Horner, I. B. (Eds.) The LivingThoughts of Gotama the Buddha

London: Cassell, 1948

Crim, K. (Ed.) Abingdon Dictionary of LivingReligions

Nashville, 1981


64/70

62

von Glasenapp, H. Vedanta and Buddhism, TheMiddle Way

London: The Buddhist Society, February, 1957.

Kennedy, R. (Ed.) The International Dictionary of

Religion

New York: Crossroads, 1984

Malalasekera, G. P. The Truth of AnattaKandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1966

Manchester, F. & Prabhavananda, S. (Eds.) TheUpanishads

New York: Mentor, 1957

Nanamoli, B. (Ed.) The Path of Purification:Visuddhi MaggaKandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1975

Narada, M. H. A Manual of AbhidhammaColombo, 1979

Nyanatiloka Buddhist DictionaryKandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1980

Rahula, W. What the Buddha TaughtNew York: Grove Press, 1959

Soul The Encyclopedia AmericanaDanbury, Connecticut: Grolier, Inc., 1990, Vol. 25

Watson, D. A Dictionary of Mind and SpiritLondon: Andre Deutsch, 1991


65/70

63

Endnotes

1 A Manual of Abhidhamma (p. 1)BACK

2 A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhammaby Bhikkhu Bodhi (Ed.) (pp. 3-9) BACK

3 Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religionsby Crim, K. (Ed.) (p. 699) BACK

4 The International Dictionary of Religion (p. 177) BACK

5A Dictionary of Mind and Spirit

(p. 314)BACK

6 Buddhist Dictionary, 1980 (p. 14) BACK

7 The Truth of Anatta, 1966 (p. 2) BACK

8 Dictionary of PsychologybyJ. P. Chaplin, 1975(p. 476) BACK

9 Ibid., (p. 165) BACK

10 Dictionary of Psychology (pp. 380-381) BACK

11 Ibid., (p. 381) BACK

12 Buddhist Dictionary (p. 196)BACK

13 Ibid., (p. 170) BACK

14 Ibid., (p. 85) BACK

15 The Truth of Anatta (p. 1)BACK

16 Buddhist Dictionary (pp. 45-46) BACK

17 The Truth of Anatta (pp. 24-25) BACK

18 Buddhist Dictionary (p. 196) BACK

19 S.v. 10in Buddhist Dictionary (p. 98)BACK

20 A Dictionary of Mind and Spirit (p. 314) BACK


66/70

64

21 The International Dictionary of Religion (p. 177) BACK

22 The Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. 25), by Soul(p. 236) BACK

23 A Dictionary of Comparative Religion, byS. G. F. Brandon (Ed.) (pp. 587-88) BACK

24 Vedanta and Buddhism: The Middle Way (p. 154)BACK

25 The Zen Teaching of Huang Po (p. 109) BACK

26 Sayutta Nikyaby Pi Text Society, London(IV, 400f) BACK

27 The Living Thoughts of Gotama the Buddha,by A. Coomaraswamy & I. B. Horner (Eds.) (p. 21);Mrs. Rhys Davids as quoted inThe Truth of Anatta,by G. P. Malalasekera (p. 24) BACK

28 The Upanishads, by F. Manchester &S. Prabhavananda BACK

29 An Anthology of Indian Literature, byJ. B. Alphonso-Karkala BACK

30 The Discourse on the All-Embracing Net of Views:The Brahmajala Sutta and its Commentaries, byBhikkhu Bodhi (Digha Nikaya, I) BACK

31 The Upanishads (Chaps. IX-X) BACK

32 Ibid., (Chap. III) BACK

33 Ibid., Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (Chap. X)BACK

34 Ibid.,please see the Mundaka Taittiriya, and SvetasvataraUpanishads (Chaps. V, VII & XII) BACK

35 The Upanishads, Brihadaranyaka and ChandogyaUpanishads (Chaps. IX-X); An Antholog

Documents

No Inner Core