Anattā: Difference between revisions

{{Short description|Buddhist doctrine of "non-self"}}

{{About|the concept in Buddhism|the concept in Hinduism|Anātman (Hinduism)}}

{{Italic title}}

{{Buddhism}}

{{Infobox Buddhist term

| title = Anatta

| pi =

| pi-Latn = anatta

}}

 

 

== Etymology and nomenclature ==

In Buddhism-related English literature, ''Anattā'' is rendered as "not-Self", but this translation expresses an incomplete meaning, states Peter Harvey; a more complete rendering is "non-Self" because from its earliest days, ''Anattā'' doctrine denied that there is anything called a "Self" in any person or anything else, and that a belief in "Self" is a source of ''Dukkha'' (suffering, pain, unsatisfactoriness).<ref>{{cite book|author=Peter Harvey|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=u0sg9LV_rEgC|title=An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2012|isbn=978-0-521-85942-4|pages=57–62|access-date=2016-10-23|archive-date=2020-07-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200727192540/https://books.google.com/books?id=u0sg9LV_rEgC|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Peter Harvey|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=P_lmCgAAQBAJ|title=A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|year=2015|isbn=978-1-119-14466-3|editor=Steven M. Emmanuel|pages=34–37|access-date=2016-10-23|archive-date=2017-03-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170323185852/https://books.google.com/books?id=P_lmCgAAQBAJ|url-status=live}}</ref>{{Refn|Buddha did not deny a being or a thing, referring it to be a collection of impermanent interdependent aggregates, but denied that there is a metaphysical self, soul or identity in anything.<ref>{{cite book|author=Peter Harvey|editor=Steven M. Emmanuel|title=A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=P_lmCgAAQBAJ|year=2015|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=978-1-119-14466-3|page=36|access-date=2016-10-23|archive-date=2017-03-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170323185852/https://books.google.com/books?id=P_lmCgAAQBAJ|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=kalupahana56 /><ref name=davidloyp105 />|group=note}} Buddhist scholar [[Richard Gombrich]], however, argues that ''anattā'' is often mistranslated as meaning "not having a self or essence", but actually means "''is'' not ''ātman''" instead of "does not ''have ātman''."{{sfn|Gombrich|2009|p=69–70}} It is also incorrect to translate ''Anattā'' simply as "ego-less", according to Peter Harvey, because the Indian concept of ''ātman'' and ''attā'' is different from the Freudian concept of ego.<ref>{{cite book|author=Peter Harvey|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=u0sg9LV_rEgC|title=An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2012|isbn=978-0-521-85942-4|page=62|access-date=2016-10-23|archive-date=2020-07-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200727192540/https://books.google.com/books?id=u0sg9LV_rEgC|url-status=live|quote=Again, anatta does not mean 'egoless', as it is sometimes rendered. The term 'ego' has a range of meanings in English. The Freudian 'ego' is not the same as the Indian atman/atta or permanent Self.}}</ref>{{Refn|The term ''ahamkara'' is 'ego' in Indian philosophies.<ref>{{cite book|author=Surendranath Dasgupta|title=A History of Indian Philosophy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PoaMFmS1_lEC|year=1992|publisher=Motilal Banarsidass (Republisher; Originally published by Cambridge University Press)|isbn=978-81-208-0412-8|page=250|access-date=2016-10-23|archive-date=2019-06-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190602132449/https://books.google.com/books?id=PoaMFmS1_lEC|url-status=live}}</ref>|group=note}}

 

===In early Buddhist texts ===

The concept of ''Anattā'' appears in numerous [[Sutra]]s of the ancient Buddhist [[Nikāya]] texts (Pali canon). It appears, for example, as a noun in ''[[Samyutta Nikaya]]'' III.141, IV.49, V.345, in Sutta II.37 of ''[[Anguttara Nikaya]]'', II.37–45 and II.80 of ''[[Patisambhidamagga]]'', III.406 of ''[[Dhammapada]]''. It also appears as an adjective, for example, in ''[[Samyutta Nikaya]]'' III.114, III.133, IV.28 and IV.130–166, in Sutta III.66 and V.86 of ''[[Vinaya]]''.<ref name="DavidsStede1921p22" /><ref name="Bronkhorst2009p124">{{cite book|author=Johannes Bronkhorst|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Mhuabeq5-cAC|title=Buddhist Teaching in India|publisher=Simon and Schuster|year=2009|isbn=978-0-86171-566-4|pages=124–125 with footnotes|access-date=2016-10-23|archive-date=2016-12-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161207124439/https://books.google.com/books?id=Mhuabeq5-cAC|url-status=live}}</ref> It is also found in the ''Dhammapada''.<ref>{{cite book|author1=John Carter|author2=Mahinda Palihawadana|title=Dhammapada|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AAcWDAAAQBAJ|year=2008|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-955513-0|pages=30–31, 74, 80|access-date=2016-10-23|archive-date=2019-12-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191223092932/https://books.google.com/books?id=AAcWDAAAQBAJ|url-status=live}}</ref>