The Not-self Doctrine: what it is and what it is not

The Not-self doctrine was the second discourse expounded by Gautama the Buddha after his Enlightenment. It is the principle that distinguishes Buddhism from other religious doctrines, as well as its most obscure and controversial. Correct understanding of this principle is essential for understanding Buddhism and achieving Enlightenment.

The underlying problem concerns the nature of the self that is negated.

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)

Not-self is the translation of the term anatta from Pali. It is related to anatman, a term used by the Mahayana tradition. Both words were derived from the word atman.

The word atman (meaning breath) comes from Sanskrit (the liturgical language of Hinduism). It refers to the essence of human being that does not perish, like the self or soul.  

The Buddha rejected the idea of a soul because he did not directly perceive it. Nevertheless, when asked directly, he never confirmed or denied the existence of the self.

The doctrine has since been largely understood as a No-self doctrine. Most pundits interpreted this doctrine to mean that a human being consists only of interdependent phenomena. That there is no perceiver of phenomena, only an illusion of a person.

But this creates much confusion and obscurity. Because if no individual being exists then there is also no one who suffers or who becomes Enlightened. The outcome is just another type of Nihilism.

That form is not self is not complicated to grasp. Form refers to all that is physical or material, particularly the body, which is ever-changing, impermanent. All forms, physical existence, can be easily identified as objects of consciousness.

Feeling refers to the contact with the five senses. These are also not difficult to determine as objects of the mind. They are constantly variable and cannot be trusted.

Perceptions are what we recognize as objects, or what it is (e.g., an apple, a chair). Determinations are ideas include memories and emotions.

Most persons strongly identify with their perceptions, thoughts, and emotions as their self. But these are also objects that come and go from the field of consciousness.

The problem is consciousness. Because you would need another consciousness to know that a consciousness is impermanent, and so to infinity. In other words, you cannot observe your own consciousness as impermanent. Also, you can shift your attention away from the body, the senses, and thoughts. But you cannot shift your attention away from your attention. This is because you are the attention, the awareness.

Consciousness as not-self can only exist as a theory, an idea, but can never be experienced. As Emmanuel Kant (b.1724, d.1804) points out:  It is experience alone that can impart reality to our concepts; without this, a concept is only an idea without truth. (B 518, 519) 

“Consciousness is not-self” refers to the consciousness of things, or contact-consciousness. The Buddha used the same term in his Discourse on Dependent Origination (Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta):

From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. (SN 12.2)

Here the cessation of consciousness cannot be the end of awareness but the cessation of thought formation.

You need a consciousness that connects phenomena into perceptions and thoughts. So, there must be an awareness that is not the objects of awareness.

Here is where Existentialism clarifies the problem.  

The philosopher Emmanuel Kant was the first to understand that there is an observing consciousness that ties together the series of thoughts. Kant explains in his masterwork Critique of Pure Reason:  

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) 

The philosopher Jean Paul Sartre (b.1905, d.1980) further elaborated on this idea in his master work Being and Nothingness:

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.

The Not-self doctrine points negatively to awareness. An awareness that is not any of its objects of awareness (not form, perception, feelings, or ideas). Sartre determined human awareness an absolute subjectivity. In other words, awareness can know things but cannot know itself as a thing. Consequently, Sartre revealed human awareness as a Nothingness, a no-thingness.

The self that is impermanent and an illusion is the mundane self. This is the self that we create with our thoughts, emotions, and physical existence. We create a self to exist as something.

Awareness is not anything that you can think of. You can become aware of your pure awareness during deep meditation when all thoughts are released.

Now we can understand why the Buddha refused to discuss the knowing being, the one who knows. Because, to describe this awareness, or true Self, would make it an idea, another object of the mind. It would eclipse direct realization.

We can never know what our consciousness is because we can only know objects of consciousness. Consciousness is awareness, a pure knowing. It is self-evident that you exist. It is also self-evident that you are aware of only yourself as existing.

The Buddha intended the Not-self doctrine as is simply a method for achieving Enlightenment. Simply to find the inner peace and happiness that comes from not identifying with the mundane self. It is not a metaphysical declaration, an ontology, on the self.  

Enlightenment is the realization of your pure awareness, of your absolute subjective existence:

Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around,
does not partake of the solidity of earth, the liquidity of water, the
radiance of fire, the windiness of wind.
~ M 49.25 (The Island, pg. 148)