Anattā: Difference between revisions

In [[Buddhism]], the term '''''anattā''''' ({{lang-pi|𑀅𑀦𑀢𑁆𑀢𑀸}}) or '''''anātman''''' ({{lang-sa|अनात्मन्}}) is the doctrine of "nonno-self" – that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon.{{refn|group=note|name="anatman_definition"}} While often interpreted as a doctrine denying the existence of a self, ''anatman'' is more accurately described as a strategy to attain non-attachment by recognizing everything as impermanent, while staying silent on the ultimate existence of an unchanging essence.{{sfn|Gombrich|2009|p=69–70}}{{sfn|Wynne|2009|p=59–63, 76–77}}<ref name="Selves"/> In contrast, dominant schools of Hinduism assert the existence of [[Atman (Hinduism)|Ātman]] as [[purusha|pure awareness]] or [[sakshi (Witness)|witness-consciousness]],{{sfn|Deutsch|1973|p=48}}{{sfn|Dalal|2010|p=38}}{{sfn|McClelland|2010|p=34–35}}{{refn|group=note|name="atman_Hinduism"}} "reify[ing] consciousness as an eternal self."{{sfn|Mackenzie|2012}}

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 "nonno-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}}

Buddhist scholars [[Richard Gombrich]] and Alexander Wynne argue that the Buddha's descriptions of nonno-self in early Buddhist texts do not deny that there is a self.{{sfn|Gombrich|2009|p=69–70}}{{sfn|Wynne|2009|p=59–63, 76–77}} Wynne and Gombrich both argue that the Buddha's statements on ''anattā'' were originally a "not-self" teaching that developed into a "no-self" teaching in later Buddhist thought.{{sfn|Wynne|2009|p=59–63, 76–77}}{{sfn|Gombrich|2009|p=69–70}} According to Wynne, early Buddhist texts such as the ''[[Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta]]'' do not deny that there is a self, stating that the [[five aggregates]] that are described as not-self are not descriptions of a human being but descriptions of the human experience.{{sfn|Wynne|2009|p=59–63, 76–77}} According to [[Johannes Bronkhorst]], it is possible that "original Buddhism did not deny the existence of the soul", even though a firm Buddhist tradition has maintained that the Buddha avoided talking about the soul or even denied its existence.<ref>{{cite book|author= Johannes Bronkhorst|title= The Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient India|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=AZbZDP8MRJoC|year= 1993|publisher= Motilal Banarsidass|isbn= 978-81-208-1114-0|pages= 99 with footnote 12|access-date= 2016-10-23|archive-date= 2018-11-20|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20181120063417/https://books.google.com/books?id=AZbZDP8MRJoC|url-status= live}}</ref>

According to Collins, "insight into the teaching of ''anattā'' is held to have two major loci in the intellectual and spiritual education of an individual" as s/he progresses along [[Noble Eightfold Path|the Path]].<ref name=stevecollins94/> The first part of this insight is to avoid ''sakkayaditthi'' (Personality Belief), that is converting the "sense of I which is gained from introspection and the fact of physical individuality" into a theoretical belief in a self.<ref name=stevecollins94/> "A belief in a (really) existing body" is considered a false belief and a part of the Ten Fetters that must be gradually lost. The second loci is the psychological realization of ''anattā'', or loss of "pride or conceit". This, states Collins, is explained as the conceit of ''asmimana'' or "I am"; (...) what this "conceit" refers to is the fact that for the unenlightened man, all experience and action must necessarily appear phenomenologically as happening to or originating from an "I".<ref name=stevecollins94/> When a Buddhist gets more enlightened, this happening to or originating in an "I" or sakkdyaditthi is less. The final attainment of enlightenment is the disappearance of this automatic but illusory "I".<ref name=stevecollins94>{{cite book|author=Steven Collins|title=Selfless Persons: Imagery and Thought in Theravada Buddhism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8sLMkNn26-gC|year=1990|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-39726-1|pages=93–94|access-date=2016-10-23|archive-date=2019-05-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190501235302/https://books.google.com/books?id=8sLMkNn26-gC|url-status=live}}</ref>

The dispute about "self" and "not-self" doctrines has continued throughout the history of Buddhism.<ref>{{cite book|author=Potprecha Cholvijarn|title=Nibbāna as True Reality beyond the Debate|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FkXJVKnjw3kC|publisher=Wat Luang Phor Sodh|isbn=978-974-350-263-7|page=45|access-date=2016-10-23|archive-date=2019-05-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190502000929/https://books.google.com/books?id=FkXJVKnjw3kC|url-status=live}}</ref> In Thai Buddhism, for example, states [[Paul Williams (philosopher)|Paul Williams]], some modern era Buddhist scholars have claimed that "Nirvana is indeed the true self", while other Thai Buddhists disagree.{{sfn|Williams|2008|pp=125–7}} For instance, the [[Dhammakaya Movement|Dhammakaya tradition]] in Thailand teaches that it is erroneous to subsume nirvana under the rubric of ''anattā'' (nonno-self); instead, nirvana is taught to be the "true self" or ''[[Dharmakaya|dhammakaya]]''.{{sfn|Mackenzie|2007|pp=100–5, 110}} The Dhammakaya tradition teaching that nirvana is [[Atman (Buddhism)|atta]], or true self, was criticized as heretical in Buddhism in 1994 by [[Prayudh Payutto|Ven. Payutto]], a well-known scholar monk, who stated that 'Buddha taught Nibbana as being nonno-self".{{sfn|Mackenzie|2007|p=51}}{{Sfn|Williams|2008|p=127-128}} The abbot of one major temple in the Dhammakaya tradition, Luang Por Sermchai of [[Dhammakaya Movement#Wat Luang Phor Sodh Dhammakayaram|Wat Luang Por Sodh Dhammakayaram]], argues that it tends to be scholars who hold the view of absolute nonno-self, rather than Buddhist meditation practitioners. He points to the experiences of prominent forest hermit monks such as [[Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro|Luang Pu Sodh]] and [[Ajahn Mun]] to support the notion of a "true self".{{Sfn|Williams|2008|p=127-128}}{{sfn|Seeger|2009|pp=13 footnote 40}} Similar interpretations on the "true self" were put forth earlier by the 12th [[Supreme Patriarch of Thailand]] in 1939. According to Williams, the Supreme Patriarch's interpretation echoes the ''[[tathagatagarbha|tathāgatagarbha]]'' sutras.{{sfn|Williams|2008|p=126}}

Several notable teachers of the [[Thai Forest Tradition]] have also described ideas in contrast to absolute nonno-self. [[Ajahn Maha Bua]], a well known meditation master, described the [[Citta|citta (mind)]] as being an indestructible reality that does not fall under ''anattā.''<ref>pp. 101–103 Maha Boowa, Arahattamagga, Arahattaphala: the Path to Arahantship&nbsp;– A Compilation of Venerable Acariya Maha Boowa's Dhamma Talks about His Path of Practice, translated by Bhikkhu Silaratano, 2005, http://www.forestdhammabooks.com/book/3/Arahattamagga.pdf {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090327073822/http://www.forestdhammabooks.com/book/3/Arahattamagga.pdf |date=2009-03-27 }} (consulted 16 March 2009)</ref> He has stated that not-self is merely a perception that is used to pry one away from infatuation with the concept of a self, and that once this infatuation is gone the idea of not-self must be dropped as well.<ref>Archived at [https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/1S40nS_0R9Y Ghostarchive]{{cbignore}} and the [https://web.archive.org/web/20180829045355/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S40nS_0R9Y&t=4545s Wayback Machine]{{cbignore}}: {{Citation|last=UWE STOES|title=Thanassaro Bhikkhu|date=2015-04-22|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S40nS_0R9Y&t=4545s|access-date=2017-09-30}}{{cbignore}}</ref> American monk [[Thanissaro Bhikkhu]] of the Thai Forest Tradition describes the Buddha's statements on non-self as a path to awakening rather than a universal truth.<ref name="Selves" /> [[Bhikkhu Bodhi]] authored a rejoinder to Thanissaro, agreeing that ''anattā'' is a strategy for awakening but stating that "The reason the teaching of ''anattā'' can serve as a strategy of liberation is precisely because it serves to rectify a misconception about the nature of being, hence an [[Category mistake|ontological error]]."<ref>{{citation|last=Bodhi|first=Bhikkhu|title=Investigating the Dhamma|date=January 2017|page=25|chapter=Anatta as Strategy and Ontonology|publisher=[[Buddhist Publication Society]]|isbn=978-1-68172-068-5|author-link=Bhikkhu Bodhi}}</ref> Thanissaro Bhikkhu states that the Buddha intentionally set aside the question of whether or not there is a self as a useless question, and goes on to call the phrase "there is no self" the "granddaddy of fake Buddhist quotes". He adds that clinging to the idea that there is no self at all would actually ''prevent'' enlightenment.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Bhikkhu|first=Thanissaro|title=There is no self.|work=Tricycle: The Buddhist Review|url=https://tricycle.org/magazine/there-no-self/|url-status=live|access-date=2018-08-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180819114904/https://tricycle.org/magazine/there-no-self/|archive-date=2018-08-19}}</ref> Thanissaro Bhikkhu points to the Ananda Sutta ([[Sutta Nipata|SN 44.10]]), where the Buddha [[The unanswered questions|stays silent]] when asked whether there is a 'self' or not,<ref>{{Cite web|title=Ananda Sutta: To Ananda|url=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170510092025/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html|archive-date=2017-05-10|access-date=2017-05-14|website=www.accesstoinsight.org}}</ref> as a major cause of the dispute.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Introduction to the Avyakata Samyutta: (Undeclared-connected)|url=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.intro.than.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170508212946/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.intro.than.html|archive-date=2017-05-08|access-date=2017-05-14|website=www.accesstoinsight.org}}</ref>

According to Jayatilleke, the Upanishadic inquiry fails to find an empirical correlate of the assumed [[Atman (Hinduism)|''Atman'']], but nevertheless assumes its existence,{{sfn|Jayatilleke|1963|p=39}} and Advaitins "reify consciousness as an eternal self."{{sfn|Mackenzie|2012}} In contrast, the Buddhist inquiry "is satisfied with the [[Empirical research|empirical investigation]] which shows that no such Atman exists because there is no evidence" states Jayatilleke.{{sfn|Jayatilleke|1963|p=39}} According to Harvey, in Buddhism the negation of temporal existents is applied even more rigorousrigorously than in the Upanishads:

{{quote|While the ''[[Upanishad]]s'' recognized many things as being not-Self, they felt that a real, true Self could be found. They held that when it was found, and known to be identical to Brahman, the basis of everything, this would bring liberation. In the Buddhist ''[[Buddhist texts|Suttas]]'', though, literally everything is seen isas non-Self, even [[Nirvana]]. When this is known, then liberation – ''Nirvana'' – is attained by total non-attachment. Thus both the ''Upanishads'' and the Buddhist ''Suttas'' see many things as not-Self, but the Suttas apply it, indeed non-Self, to ''everything''.<ref>{{cite book |author=Peter Harvey |title=An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=u0sg9LV_rEgC |year=2012 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-85942-4 |pages=59–60 |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>}}

* [https://www.britannica.com/topic/anatta Anatta] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151210185046/https://www.britannica.com/topic/anatta |date=2015-12-10 }}, ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' (2013): "Anatta, (Pali: “non-self” or “substanceless”) Sanskrit anatman, in Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the soul. Instead, the individual is compounded of five factors (Pali khandha; Sanskrit skandha) that are constantly changing. "

[[Category:SelfIdentity (philosophy)]]