Non-self (anatta).

What they call the soul, self or ego, is to refer to an entity absolute, eternal in the human, unchanging substance behind the phenomenon of ever-changing world. According to some religions, each with a separate soul like that created by God, and that after death the soul will live forever in hell or heaven. Its fate depends on the judgment of its creator. According to some religions, that soul through many lives, until it is completely clean and eventually became identical with God or Brahman Brahma, the universal soul or that it derives from Ātman . Soul or ego in man is the thinking, feeling, and receive a payoff for all its evil deeds. One such concept is called Self.

Buddhism is the only religion in the religious history of humanity denying the existence of a soul, like Self or Ātman. According to Buddhist teachings, ego is a false belief, does not correspond to reality, and it produces harmful thoughts of 'me' and 'mine', selfish desire not bored, the approved competition, hatred, evil, arrogant conceit, and other pollution defilements much trouble. It is the source of all the world's troubles, from personal conflicts to wars between nations. In short, all the work the hell on earth originated from this false conception.

There are two ideas ingrained in the human psyche: self-defense and self-perpetuating. For self-protection man has created God to lean on, to be sheltered, security guarantees, such as a child who rely on their parents. For self-preservation man created the idea of ​​an immortal soul or Ātman will live eternally. In ignorance, weakness, fear, longing, we need two things to calm, soothe himself; For this reason they cling to it fanatically and enthusiasm.

Buddhist teachings do not condone ignorance, weakness, fear, desire it, but as human remains bright eyes by suppress, destroy, root out this behavior. According to Buddhism, our ideas about God and the soul are false, empty. Although his ideas are developed deeply woven into the doctrines, all of which are projected sophisticated imagination wrapped in a bunch of nouns philosophy and metaphysical complexity. These ideas were deeply rooted in the human psyche, are nearest and dearest to them so that they do not wish to hear, nor want to understand a certain moral opposite.

Buddha knows that, he taught that his teachings "going upstream" (patisotagami), in contrast to the selfish desires of man. Four weeks after enlightenment, sitting under a banyan tree, he said to himself: "I did witness a profound truth, difficult to find, difficult to understand ... only the wise man finally understood. People who are passionate tame, ignorance surrounds can not see this truth, because it is retrograde, it's sublime, deep, subtle vakho thought. "

Thought, the Buddha hesitated for a moment: "Is useless if we try explaining to the world the truth that we have seen in?" Then he compared the world like a lotus pond: the flowers that are more remaining below the surface, there are others just stuck to the surface, but also the flowers rose up out of the lake and are untouched by the water. Also in this world, the development level of different people. There are some who will understand the truth. So the Buddha decided to teach this truth [1].

Non-self management is a natural consequence, the implications of the analysis of five aggregates and dependent origination (or dependent arising, Paticca-samuppāda) [2].

In the discussion of the First Noble Truth (suffering soles, dukkha), we have seen what we call soul or individual is composed of five aggregates, and the analysis of the five aggregates do not see anything behind we can call as I am, Ātman or Self, or any permanent substance unchanging. This is the method of analysis. We also have the same result when discipline at origination, synthesis method, and according to this law, there is nothing in this world is absolute. Everything (legal) are limited, relative, and interdependent. This is the Buddhist theory of relativity.

Before actually going to issue non-self, we should have a brief idea about the law of dependent origination. The principle of this theory is summarized in a formula consisting of 4 lines:

This one has, the other one has (imasmim idamhoti sati).
This is a child, the other one was born (imassuppada idam uppajjati).
This is not, then the other is not (idam na hoti imasmim asati).
This is killing, then the other cessation (nirodha idam imassa airujjhata) [3].

According to the principle of the condition, relativistic reciprocity and subject him, the continuation of life and the ending of it is explained in a detailed recipe called dependent origination (ie the arising conditions or Coast) consists of 12 elements:

1. Ignorance (do) grace (to) act (intentional actions or karma) (avijjapaccaya samkhava).

2. Action (do) grace (for) food (samkharapaccaya vinnanam).

3. Consciousness (do) grace (for) rupa (mental phenomena and physical) (Vinnanapaccaya namarupam).

4. Mentality (do) grace (for) record in (5 senses and consciousness) (Namarupapaccaya salayatanam).

5. sixfold (do) grace (to) contact (touching, exposure) (salayatanapaccaya phasso).

6. Promotion (do) grace (the) life (feeling) (phassapaccaya vedana).

7. Tho (do) grace (to) love (longing desire) (vedanapaccayatanha).

8. Ai (do) grace (for) capital (hold on, hold on) (Tanhapaccaya upadanam).

9. Prime (do) grace (to) ownership (process and become born) (upadanapaccaya bhavo).

10. Friends (do) grace (for) students (life, birth) (Bhavapaccaya Jati).

11. Birth (do) grace (for)

12. Lao (old) death (death) bi suffering (pain anxiety) (Jatipaccaya jaram maranam).

This is the process by which life arose, and continued existence. If we reverse the formula again, we will go to the end of the process:

Ignorance of kill kill it, kill the wake of kill, kill mode, the kill mentality, mentality and so ceased, the passing record. until birth, aging, death, suffering bi ... kill.

Should remember one thing that each of the above factors are just as human as effective medium, it has been determined by (paticcasamuppanna), and has as a condition for (paticcasamuppada) [4]. Therefore they are relative, interdependent and interrelated, nothing is absolute or isolated, so that Buddhism does not recognize "first cause" as we have seen before [5]. Origination should be viewed as a circle, and not be seen as a chain [6].

The problem of free will occupy an important place in the thought and Western philosophy. But according to the law of dependent origination, this problem does not arise and could not arise in Buddhist philosophy. If the whole of existence is relative, limited and interdependent, how can will alone be free? the will also be limited as any other ideology. The so-called "freedom" itself is relatively limited. There can be something physical or psychological can be absolutely free, because all things are relative and relativity. "Free will" implied a desire not depend on the conditions, independent of cause and effect. How one wishes or whatever belongs to the will, which may arise without conditions, separation of cause and effect - when the whole of existence are relatively limited and, in the law of cause and effect? Again here, the notion of free will is also closely related to the idea of ​​God, the soul, justice, reward and punishment. None of the so-called freedom was not free, but even the idea of ​​free will is not free from conditions.

Under the law of dependent origination, as well as the analysis of these five people, the idea of ​​an immortal nature in or outside man, though called Ātman, I, Soul, Self, or the Self, only be regarded as a false belief (false signals), a shadow of the mind. This is the Buddhist doctrine of non-self (anatta).

To avoid confusion, we should mention here that there are two kinds of truth: the truth stylized, custom insole (sammutisacca), and the absolute truth or Win imperialism (paramatthasaca) [7].

When we use everyday words like "I", "me", "soul", "individual" and so on. We are not lying, but speaking the truth upon the earth by convention. But the ultimate truth is no "I" or "soul". As economic Mahayanasutralankara (Mahayana enter the old Lang) tells us: "A man (pudagala) should be considered only in the simulator (prajnapati) (ie, by convention there is an individual or a man), not must in reality (dravya) [8].

"The government received an immortal soul is the characteristic common to all systems Theravada teachings and Mahayana, and so there is no reason to assert that the Mahayana tradition, a tradition quite like minded the Theravada point on this issue, went away with the original teachings of the Buddha. "[9]

So, strange as recently several scholars (like a vain and others) [10] have tried - in vain - interspersed idea of ​​self in Buddhist teachings, a stark contrast with Buddhism. The scholars this respect, admire and venerate the Buddha and his teachings. They admire Buddhism. But they can not imagine the Buddha, whom they see as a profound thinker and the most transparent, to be able to deny the existence of Ātman, soul or ego, but they are required to. They do not know that they are looking for the support of Buddhist needs, demands an eternal existence - certainly not in a petty individual self with the n word often, but in the Fall with a word N flowers.

It is better to say frankly that they believe in Ātman or Self, or one could say right away that Buddha entirely wrong to deny the existence of an atta. But certainly no one should put an idea in Buddhism that Buddha never accepted, as we can see from the remaining original Pali.

These religions believe in God and the soul no secret that the two concepts, contrary to claims them, repeated many times in the most eloquent terms. If the results Buddha accepted her two ideas, two ideas is vital in every religion, then surely he has publicly stated he has declared them as other things, and not let them be hidden to only discover 25 centuries after his death.

It stretches to temper to think that through the teachings of Buddhism Anatta, so I imagine they have, will be destroyed. The Buddha was not unaware of this.

One day, the monks asked him: "O Buddha, when people have tormented confused because in his not find something permanent?"

The Buddha replied:

- It has thus the bhikkhus. When a person is thinking, "Space is Ātman, after death you will be what he, everlasting, forever, lasting, unchanging, so we'll survive until infinity," which is heard Tathagata or a disciple of the Tathagata preached theories led to the complete destruction of all thinking perspective ... put quench the thirst, to liberation, to terminate, Nirvana; he will think: "So we will become void, we will be destroyed, we would not exist." So it whine, worry, mourn mourn, and crashed into a panic. Thus, the bhikkhus, fruit cases when it is crushed not find in it something lasting [11].

Elsewhere, the Buddha says, O bhikkhus, thinking 'I will not survive, nothing more "make people stupid fear." [12]

Those looking for a "Self" in Buddhism reasoning as follows: It is true that the Buddha has analyzed the human form, feeling, perception, volition and consciousness (the five aggregates), and say nothing of what it self. But he does not have absolute security Falls, where human or elsewhere outside the five aggregates.

This position is untenable for two reasons:

One is that, according to Buddhist teachings, man is only five Aggregates nothing more. Nowhere Buddha also has something else in humans, in addition to the five aggregates.

The second is perhaps the Buddha repeatedly rejected by the words transparency, Ātman existence of the soul or the Self within or outside the human, or anywhere in the universe. Here are some examples:

In the Dhammapada (Dhammapada) has three verses of vital and essential teachings of the Buddha: articles 5, 6, 7 and chapter 20 (or the verse number 277, 278, 279).

The first two verses say:

"All of impermanence" (Sabbe samkhāra aniccā) and
"All of that suffering" (Sabbe samkhāra dukkhā).
[act or compounded, is what birth, residence and removal; are combined by the conditions - translator]

The third verse is:

"All legal selflessness" (Sabbe dhamma anatta) [13].

It should be noted here that especially in the first two verses, the word samkhāra - "things conditional" - has been used. But in the third sentence instead samkhāra word, the word dhamma is used. Why did not the third verse uses the word out, samkhāra, "the material conditions", as the previous two sentences, which uses the term dhamma instead? The main point is that the most important issue.

Noun act, samkhāra [14] alluded to the Five Aggregates, everything and restricted status, interdependence, relative, every "legal" physical as well as psychological (identity law and law center). If the third verse says: "All of (the restricted material) is non-self", people may think things are selfless limited, however there may be a Self outside conditioned things are limits that are outside the five aggregates. Key to avoiding misunderstandings that noun law (dhamma) was used in the third verse.

List of law has a broader range of lots. No word in Buddhist terminology has broader legal text. It includes not only the state of things and conditions, but also the unconditional, absolute, Nirvana; nothing in or outside the universe, good or bad, compounded (Conditional) or unconditioned (without conditions), the relative or absolute ..., which is not included in this term. Therefore, it is clear, according to the "all legal selfless" there is no Self, no soul, not only in the five aggregates, but also anywhere outside the five aggregates or isolated from the five aggregates [15].

According to the original teachings, this means that there is no self in man (puggala) or in the law. Mahayana philosophy has an identical stance, there is no any difference on that point, the emphasis on the non-self of the selflessness of the law as well as human (legal selfless, selflessness and human dhammanairatmya, pudgalanairatmya ).

In the example Alagadddupamasutta Xa (Central I), Buddha's disciples: "O bhikkhus, for he can cling to a soul-theory (the theory of self) if it does not arise grief, lamentation pain, grief, brain . But the monks, and he has found a soul-theory like it or not, a fall in the acceptance of its conclusion, would not arise grief, lamentation, pain, grief, brain?

- O Buddha, is not certain.

- The World, ask monks, the Tathagata, too. Bhikkhus, the Tathagata do not see a soul-theory which, if accepted, would not arise grief, lamentation, pain, grief, brain. "[16]

If the Buddha had accepted a soul-theory, then surely he has preached here, because he asked the bhikkhus to accept an argument falls if that theory does not produce suffering. But according to him, there is no such doctrine, and any soul-theory, though subtle and sublime nowhere is just pretending and imagining, born any problems, accompanied by sorrow, compassion, suffering and mental afflictions.

Next, the Buddha was also in business:

"O bhikkhus, when the self nor anything pertaining to self not really so, thinking this perspective:" The universe is Falling, Falling I will be after death, will be everlasting, existence, forever sensing, constancy, and we would like to present to eternity ", the view that there should be absolutely foolish?" [17]

Here the Buddha states that a Ātman, or soul, or Self, is not found anywhere in reality, and it's crazy to believe that there is such a thing.

Those seeking an atta in Buddhist teachings drawn a few examples that firstly they mistranslated, and explain mistakes. One example was the reputation Āttā hi attano nātho does the Dhammapada (XII, 4 or verse 160), has been translated as "I am the lord of self," and explained that it means something falls mostly ego lord of small.

First, this translation is incorrect. Āttā this does not mean that the soul down. In Pali, the noun Āttā often used as a pronoun, except in the few cases where it is used in a special sense to refer to the philosophical theory of the soul as seen above.

According to common usage, such as in chapter XII of the Dhammapada, the preceding sentence shall be deducted therefrom, and in many other places, Āttā be used as a pronoun or pronoun uncertainty means "myself", "Main him, "" itself, "" ourselves "," oneself "and so on. [18]

Next, the word nātho not mean "lord", which is "helpless", "shelter, help Dou, sheltered" [19]. Therefore Āttā hi attano really means "I am our own shelter." It does not pertain to a metaphysical self or soul at all. It just means you have to rely on yourself, and not rely on others.

An example of the attempt to give an idea of ​​the Buddha's teachings fell on the reputation Attadipa viharatha, attasarana anannasarana be separated from economic context Mahaparinirvana [20]. This phrase literally means: "Be your own island, is the main refuge for you, and do not see anyone else as your refuge" [21]. Those looking down Buddhism has interpreted the word attadipa and attasarana is "taking a fall light", "take a fall helpless" [22].

I do not understand the full meaning Buddha's advice Ananda (Ananda) without considering the context and the context in which these words were uttered.

At that time the Buddha was staying at a village called Behuva, three months before his death, Bat Nirvana (parinirvana). Now he was 80 years old, is very ill. But he thinks should not die without breaking it to his disciples who were close to love him. Therefore, a courageous, assured, He endured all the pain, wins surf illness and recovery. But his health was poor. After his recovery, one day he sat in the shade outside his residence. Ananda, the most devoted attendant of the Buddha, guru approached his beloved, sitting next to Buddha and said:

"O Buddha, I have healthcare Buddha, I have looked after him in his illness. But when he saw his sickness, for the sky becomes hazy, and the human senses no longer lucid. But the longer this one small consolation: I think the Buddha would not enter Nirvana without leaving a mobile teacher's words referring to the Sangha. "

When the Buddha was full of compassion and kindness, were tolerant told dear devoted attendant: "Ananda, the Sangha was waiting for something from me again? I have said law (the truth) does not distinguish high and low. In terms of truth, Tathagata nothing like the closed fist of a teacher (acariyamutthi). Ānanda, if someone has thoughts of leaders Sangha, Sangha to depend on them, then of course they will put out the instructions. But the Tathagata has no idea of ​​it. Then why the Tathagata must save the instructions related to the Sangha organization? I am old now, Ananda, was 80 years old. As an old car need to fix a new run, too, the body of the Tathagata is now just continue operating due to repair. Therefore, Ānanda, please do your own island, Did you take shelter, do not rely on anyone else; Please take a French island, a French take refuge, no one else can do for your shelter [23].

What he wanted to teach Ananda was so clear. Ananda was sad and depressed. He thought I would be completely alone, helpless, helpless, not the instructor, after the great guru died. Thus the Buddha gave him words of comfort, advised him courage, confidence, teaches that should depend on themselves, and on "France," he commanded, and not on anyone else, to something else. Here the problem of a metaphysical Ātman, or ego, is entirely beside the point.

Then the Buddha explained to Ananda how can an island or shelter for himself: it is by the formation of attention to observe the body, feelings, mind and methods (4 customary law, see the next chapter of Contemplation) [24]. Here, too, without a word related to self or soul.

Another document is also often cited by people looking for Self in Buddhist teachings. One day, the Buddha sat under a tree in a forest on the way from Benares (Benares) to Uruvela. On that day, 30 young princes are going camping with their young wives in the same forest. An unmarried princes carry a courtesan. While other people are having fun, she stole some valuables and escaped. While going to find her in the woods, saw the Buddha sitting under a tree they have asked him to see a woman come across. He asks what's wrong, and after hearing the explanation the Buddha asked them, "What do you think, ask the young people? What is better for you, go find a woman, or to find yourself? "[25]

This also is a very simple question, and naturally, there is no reason to put into place the remote idea of ​​Self or Soul. They respond better to search yourself. Buddha immediately told them to sit down and lecture to them. According to the Buddhist teachings preached to them was recorded in the original texts, without a word said about the self.

People have written extensively on the subject of "the silence of the Buddha", as a wanderer named Vacchagotta have asked him self or not. The story is as follows:

Vacchagotta went to the Buddha and said, asking:

- Sir Gotama, may fall or not?

Buddha silence.

- Then, sir, no falling stars?

Then he was silent.

Vacchagotta stood up to leave.

After wanderer (parivrajaka) leave, Ananda asked Buddha why he did not answer the question of Vacchagotta. Buddha explained his position as follows:

- Ānanda, when the wanderer was asked: "Is self or not?", If you answered "Yes" is're siding with the recluses, Brahmins guidelines exist field theory (sassatavada). And this Ananda, when asked by Vacchagotta: "No ego or what?" If you answer "No" should have sided with the Brahmin monk theory advocated cessation (uccheda Vada) [26] .

Again, Ānanda, when the wanderer was asked: "Have not fall?", Which I replied: "Yes", then so is consistent with the understanding of the phenomena that we are selfless or not? "[27]

- Buddha, probably not.

- Again, Ānanda, when the wanderer was asked: "There is no ego or what?" We replied, "No", it will make Vacchagotta has bewildered even more confusion [28]. Because he will think: "Before we can indeed fall, but now we do not have anymore." [29]

Now we have to understand exactly why the Buddha was silent. But I would also understand if you consider the whole context and how Buddhism tackle the questions and the questions - what are the issues discussed was completely ignored.

Buddha is not like a computer giving answers to any questions, posed by anyone, without judgment. He is a real guru, compassion and wisdom. He did not answer questions to show their knowledge and their intelligence, but to help people on the street asking reach realization. When talking with someone he always interested in their level of development, their tendencies, their minds made up, their character and their ability to perceive the problem [30].

According to Buddhism, there are four ways answer the question:

1. There should be answered direct questions.
2. There are questions to be answered by analyzing.
3. There should be answered by asking the opposite.
4. And finally, there is the question should be clean, no response [31].

There may be multiple ways up a problem. One way is to tell him no problem answering, which is how the Buddha once wanderer Vacchagotta used to it, when he put the famous question of the universe is eternal or not and so on. [32]. Just the way that he answered for Mãlunkyaputta and others. But he can not do that on matters falling or not, because he has always discussed and explained it. You can not say: "There fell" because it opposed his knowledge that all measures of selflessness. And he did not want to say no soul, because it is in vain to make the poor guy was confused Vacchagotta increasingly more confused, as if he had recognized [33]. He is not radical enough to understand the self. So in this case, up questions aside by silence, the wisest attitude.

We also do not forget that the Buddha has said Vacchagotta long. This was not the first occasion on which the wanderer wonder he visited the Buddha. Teacher who is full of wisdom and compassion saved a lot of attention to the human search for this confusion. There are many passages mentioning Vacchagotta wanderer in the Pali scriptures, he had come to the Buddha and his disciples many times, repeated many times with these questions, it is clear he was very disturbed, almost the other problem is obsessed [34]. The silence of the Buddha probably had more effect on Vacchagotta any reply or discussion eloquent.

Some viewers fall means something often referred to as "mind" or "consciousness". But the Buddha taught that one should rather not see his physical body as "self" rather than see the mind, thought or consciousness (citta, mano, viňňāna) is falling as mind, thought or consciousness is constantly changing day night, changing even more rapidly both physically (kaya).

Main vague feeling "that I" had arisen the idea of ​​self, there is nothing equivalent in reality: and see this truth is the realization of Nibbana, it is not very easy . In the Saṁyutta Samyuttanikaya. had an enlightening conversation on this issue between the bhikkhu named Khemaka and a group of bhikkhus. These men asked Khemaka see in Khandhas a "self" or whatever does belong to "self" is not. Khemaka answer "no". Then the bhikkhus told if so, he must be an Arhat free from all pollution. But Khemaka confessed that although he was not found in any self Khandhas or anything pertaining to self, "I'm still not a Luohan (Arahant) free from all impurity contamination. This gentle monks, for the five aggregates, I have the feeling that 'I AM', but no clear "this is what I am". Khemaka then explained that what he called the "I" is not sharp, not feeling, not great, not operating, nor knowledge, nor anything outside of them. But he still has a sense of "me" to 5 aggregates, although he could not see clearly, "This is what I am.".

Khemaka say is like the fragrance of a flower: it is not the smell of the flowers, not the color of the flower, not the calyx, but the fragrance of flowers. He further explained that even if a person has reached the first stage of realization still feel "with me" thing. But later, when further, feeling completely disappear, just like the chemical smell of a freshly washed shirt away some time after it's out of the box.

Helpful discussions and clarify issues for them that then, as the scriptures record, everyone, including Khemaka, are attained Arhat, deliverance from pollution, and so they finally defeated the feeling 'I AM'.

According to Buddhist teachings, accepted that "I have no ego" (ie theory of annihilation) as wrong to accept that "my self" (theory of immortality), because both concepts are tied, are incurred from wrong ideas "with me". Attitude towards the problem of selflessness is not holding an opinion or "is" yet, but try to see things objectively, look at them as the truth, no projections of the mind. Must show that what we call "I" or "self" is just a combination of physical and mental aggregates, activity is closely correlated with each other in a line change every moment, be influenced by causal laws, and in the whole of existence, nothing is eternal, unchanging forever.

Here a natural question arises: "If there is no self, then who bear the consequences of karma (action)?" No one can answer this question more than Buddha. When a Bhikkhu asked him that question, the Buddha: "O bhikkhus, I have taught him clear interdependence of all things." [39]

The Buddha's teaching of non-self should not be seen as negative or destructive. Like Nirvana, there is truth, reality, and reality is never negative. False belief in an imaginary self has no real negative is new. The doctrine of Anatta dispels the darkness of evil and generate light signals intelligence. It's not a negative, as Asanga (Asanga) has rightly says: "There is a reality that is non-self" (nairatmyastita).END=VIETNAMESE TRANSLATE ENGLISH BY=THICH CHAN TANH.THE MIND OF ENLIGHTMENT.WORLD VIETNAMESE BUDDHIST ORDER=VIETNAMESE BUDDHIST NUN=GOLDEN LOTUS MONASTERY=THE EIGHTFOLD PATH.NAM MO SAKYA MUNI BUDDHA.( 3 TIMES ).AUSTRALIA,SYDNEY.1/11/2014.