The Anattalakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-Self Characteristic
‘Bhikkhus, material form is not-self. If form were self, then form would not be a condition for the arising of dukkha. Further, it should then be possible to control form; to determine, through an act of will, that my self should take such-and-such a form; that it should not take some other form. But since form is not-self, it is a condition for the arising of dukkha and it is not possible to alter form through acts of self-control.’Feeling, bhikkhus, is not-self, and for the same reasons. If feeling were self, it would not be a condition for the arising of dukkha, and it would be possible to say, ‘May I have just these feelings, and not those others.’ But since feeling is not-self, it does lead to dukkha, and it is not possible to alter feelings through acts of self-control.
‘Perception, bhikkhus, is not-self, for the same reasons. … Since it serves as a foundation for dukkha, and since it is not possible to say, ‘I will perceive just this, but not that other,’ therefore perception is not-self.
‘Mental formations, bhikkhus, are not-self. Therefore, they serve as a foundation for the arising of dukkha, and we are unable to say, ‘Let me have just these mental formations, and not those others.’
‘Consciousness, bhikkhus, is not-self. If consciousness were self, it would not lead to the arising of dukkha, and it would be possible to say, ‘Let me just be conscious of this part of experience, and not of that other.’ But since consciousness is not-self, it does lead to the arising of dukkha, and it is not possible to say, ‘Let me just be conscious of this, and not of that.’
‘Bhikkhus, tell me what you think: is form permanent or impermanent?’
‘It is impermanent, Master.’
‘Now, that which is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?’
‘It is unsatisfactory, Master.’
‘Now, does it make sense to regard something that’s impermanent, unsatisfying, subject to change, with the understanding, ‘This is mine; this is what I am; this is my self’?’
‘Of course not.’
‘What about feelings, perceptions, mental formations? Are these permanent or impermanent.’
‘They are impermanent.’
‘Can they be counted on to satisfy, or are they ultimately unsatisfying.’
‘Unsatisfying, Master.’
‘So, does it make sense to regard these things, which are impermanent, unsatisfying, subject to change, with the understanding, ‘This is mine; this is what I am; this is my self.’?’
‘Definitely not, Master.’
‘And consciousness; is that permanent, or impermanent?’
‘Impermanent.’
‘In the long run, is it satisfying or unsatisfying?’
‘Unsatisfying.’
‘This consciousness, then - impermanent, unsatisfying, subject to change - does it make sense to say, ‘This is mine; this is what I am; this is my self.’?’
‘That makes no sense, Master.’
‘So there you have it, bhikkhus. Whatever form may have existed in the past; whatever form may come to exist in the future; whatever form exists right now, whether internal or external, obvious or subtle, gross or spiritual, immediate or dispersed - if you regard that form with proper understanding, face up to the reality of the situation, you must see ‘This is not mine; this is not what I am; this is not my self.’
‘In the same way, bhikkhus, you must regard feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness. Whatever of this nature existed in the past, whatever will exist in the future, whatever exists right now, whether internal or external, whether obvious or subtle, whether gross or spiritual, whether immediate or diffuse, all that must be regarded thus: ‘This is all not mine; this is none of what I am; nothing of this is my self.’
‘Bhikkhus, the ennobled student who has received this instruction, seen things in this way, becomes weary of form, becomes weary of feeling, of perception, of mental formations, of consciousness. Grown weary of all that, he loses interest in it. Losing interest, he becomes dispassionate. And when his passion dissipates, he becomes free. Finally free, he awakens to the knowledge: Freedom!. He knows, ‘what came to be is now gone; the holy life has been lived; what had to be done is done; I’m not going through this again.”
That is what the Buddha said. And the bhikkhus were delighted to hear it. Moreover, as the Fortunate One gave this discourse, the minds of all five bhikkhus were freed of defilement; they lost their attachment to their delusory views.
And there were then six enlightened beings in the world.
Footnotes
Once again, I’ve taken some liberties with my rendering of this very important discourse, mainly to expand some ideas that the Buddha expressed in extremely telegraphic form, or to add a modifying word or phrase to clarify the meaning of some technical point. And, once again, here are links to the translations that I worked from, and that are more precise and closer to the original than mine.
There are three translations at Access to Insight:
- Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s translation suffers, I feel, from an over-use of ellipses (…) to indicate repetitive sections in the original, but his choice of English phrases to translate the terms used by the Buddha is instructional.
- N.K.G. Mendis’ translation may go a little too far in the opposite direction; it translates every word of the original. Mendis also provides an exceptionally lucid and helpful introduction. This was probably the source I turned to most often in composing my own rendering.
-
Ñanamoli Thera’s translation is also heavy with ellipses, and its English rendering of the Buddhist technical terms is not as enlightening as Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s. It seems clear that this is the translation on which Mendis’ version is based.
There is also on that same site an excellent essay by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, The Not-Self Strategy, which demonstrates how the concept of ‘not-self’ unfolds throughout the suttas and makes a very persuasive case that the Buddha was not really dealing with an ontological question here - whether or not the self exists - but rather pointing the way to a practice, a training for examining the practitioner’s idea of self, that is an important practice to master on the journey towards awakening.
The Buddha is speaking here of the body - the form I see when I look into the mirror in the morning, the form that you visualize when you think of me or talk about me in between classes, this form that’s standing here in front of you now. The term ‘not-self’ really has no precise and ideomatic translation in English. It’s not that the Buddha is saying that form is not what we mean when we talk about self, as we might, for example, point to a duck and say ‘that’s not a chicken’. Rather, he’s making a positive statement about form, saying that it falls into the category of those things that are anatmanah - ‘not-self’. Defining something as ‘not-self’ limits the meaning of ’self’ in a profound way. I can say that my house is not my self; that’s true from both a Buddhist point of view and a Western point of view. But that’s a trivial truth; no one really would claim otherwise. When I say that form/body is ‘not-self’, though, I’m making a claim that radically denies what many people believe, either unthinkingly or dogmatically, and I’m radically limiting the possible scope of any practical notion of ’self’.
Buddhist tradition sees sankhara, rendered here (and in most other translations) as ‘mental formations’ as what we make of what we perceive: we perceive a sunset, and we experience ‘red’, ‘clouds’, ’sky’, ‘beauty’, ‘beautiful red clouds in the sky’. Those experiences, made in our mind from momentary perceptions, are sankhara.
” ‘Let me have just these mental formations, and not those others.’”
This is, perhaps, a South Asian forerunner of the classic challenge, ‘Stand in the corner of the room and don’t think of an elephant.’
All that he used to identify as himself, all that he regarded with proprietary interest - ‘This is mine, this is what I am’.
“he awakens to the knowledge: Freedom!”
He has been free all along; his chains were chains of delusion, self-forged.
The original says ‘birth is finished’.
About the image at the top of the page
The image is of a statue of the Buddha found in the rubble of a temple near ground zero in Hiroshima. I thought it was appropriate for this discourse, although I can barely bring myself to look at it. It’s in the Hiroshima Peace Museum.
