Is there a self? Is there no self? Or is it not-self?

The background 

Correct understanding the Not-self Doctrine is not only essential to properly understand Buddhism, but it also makes easier the path to Enlightenment. Indeed, to think of it as a No-self doctrine will miss the most profound insight of Buddhism.

Not-self expresses the same insight as the Nothingness, which is the central idea behind Jean Paul Sartre’s existential philosophy.

If you are new to Buddhism, it is necessary to first read the Introduction to Buddhism blog to fully appreciate this doctrine.

The Not-self doctrine was the second discourse expounded by Gautama the Buddha after his Enlightenment. It is this doctrine that clearly distinguishes Buddhism from other religious ideologies and practical philosophies, such as that of Stoicism. it is also the most controversial and confusing teaching of the Buddha.

Not-self is the translation of the term anatta in Pali (the liturgical language of Theravada Buddhism, similar to that spoken by Siddhartha Gautama). It is related to anatman, a term used by the Mahayana tradition to express Emptiness (or sunyata). 

The doctrine is a systematic formula for the realization that everything which we can possibly experience is not the true Self (capitalized to differentiate it from the mundane self, or the personality). The idea is that once everything is seen as impermanent and not of the true Self, then the mind will let go all craving and realize the true happiness of Enlightenment.

However, overtime the teaching has been misunderstood as a No-Self doctrine, or meaning that there is no individual being that exists. The problem with this is that then there is also no being that truly suffers or that is Enlightened. As you will see, a No-Self doctrine is simply contradictory.

The problem 

The Not-self doctrine is formally known as the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta (the discourse on the Not-self doctrine):  

“Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus… 

“Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self… 

“Bhikkhus, perception is not-self… 

“Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self… 

“Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus… (SN 22.59)

Form is everything that is material, or the entire universe, but particularly referring to the body. It is quite easy to see that the things of the world are not what you are.

Although we identify strongly with the body, we are only aware of a few of its qualities (the skin, the muscles, sometimes the breathing, and digestion) and barely aware of any of the internal organs. The body is something we can observe as other, that we can consciously use as a tool, and it is therefore, not the Self.  

Feelings include all the body sensations, which can also be recognized as different from our awareness, or that which knows that there are feelings.  

Perceptions are the recognition of things that we experience (e.g., a ball, a circle) and are produced when consciousness comes in contact with the five senses.  

Determinations are our thoughts, memories, and emotions. Even though emotions feel very personal, they are things that happens to us (more like a stomachache), always transitory, and generally out of our control. We are aware of the thoughts and memories that come and go from our field of consciousness, and therefore, these are not the awareness itself.

The problem is consciousness. Because you cannot be aware (be conscious) of your consciousness as not being what you are, because what you are is consciousness.

Simply stated, you can move your attention (your focused awareness) away from your body, your senses, your perceptions, and your thoughts, but you cannot move your attention away from your attention (your awareness) because that is what you are.

What we learn from philosophy is that consciousness is always a consciousness of something, that it is always directed at something, as an object of consciousness. Which means that for you to be conscious of something, that something has to be outside of your awareness.

So, you cannot be conscious of your consciousness not being your consciousness (knowing your Self as not being your Self). Therefore, “consciousness is not self” must refer to the consciousness of things, or to the feeling of self-consciousness, but not to consciousness itself.

This consciousness of something is also what is undoubtedly intended in the Sutta of Dependent Origination (Assutavā Sutta), as there cannot be a cessation (absence) of consciousness:

Now, with the remainderless fading, cessation or absence of that very ignorance comes the cessation of formations.
With the cessation of formations comes the cessation of consciousness.
With the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of materiality-mentality... (SN 12.2)

What most people understand as self-consciousness is the idea of who you are, or your personality. This mundane self is what we create from our living in the world (it is made of thoughts and memories).

Many understand the Not-self doctrine to mean that the Self that constitutes the person is comprised of the five Khandhas, or aggregates (form, feelings, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), and since all are impermanent, then the Self is an illusion, or a No-Self doctrine.

But what is Not-self is the personality, the ego, which we create from our contact with the physical world (or the Khandhas). This self-perception is what is impermanent, an illusion, the origin of suffering, and not the true Self.

Consciousness, or awareness, is the source of all experience, all perceptions, and therefore, cannot be impermanent. A No-Self doctrine can only exist as a theory, or belief, but cannot be experienced. This concept leads inevitably to nihilism.  

The solution  

The philosopher Emmanuel Kant (b.1724, d.1804) was the first to clearly realize that there is a consciousness (the Self) which binds together all experiences, all perceptions, and the empirical self (the self-perception):

No knowledge can take place in us, no connection or unity of one item of knowledge with another, without that unity of consciousness which precedes all data…This pure, original and unchangeable consciousness I shall call transcendental apperception (B144, A108) 

Jean Paul Sartre (b.1905, d.1980) later clarified that consciousness is an absolute subjectivity, which means that we can know things but can never know our own consciousness as an object of consciousness. It is like the eye. We cannot see our own eye, but we know there is vision because we see:

Consciousness is not a special kind of knowledge, called “inner sense” or “self-knowledge” . . . consciousness has no “content”. . . Consciousness is a plenum of existence and this determining of itself by itself is an essential characteristic.

What it all comes down to is that the Not-self doctrine points to our pure conscious experience, our pure awareness of existing. However, we can only arrive at this realization as a negation because this awareness is pure subjectivity.

And that is the reason the Buddha never denied or confirmed the existence of the Self, since it would interfere with our ability to realize it. If he had talked about the Self directly (positively), it would make it an object of consciousness (an idea) and not the experience of pure awareness itself.  

This can get a little complicated, but it is much easier to understanding the Not-self doctrine with meditation. In deep concentration meditation, you can release all the objects of consciousness until what is left is the pure awareness of being aware: the consciousness that is not any-thing (the Nothingness).

This consciousness is unconditioned, not limited by anything, essentially peaceful, and the source of true happiness. Enlightenment is the realization of your pure awareness:

There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned. (Nibbana Sutta, U8.3)