Anatta: Three Takes

It seems like just yesterday that Tricycle published a piece called “Nirvana: Three Takes,” but actually it’s been twenty years. Speaking with multiple teachers from different traditions was something of a hallmark of Tricycle’s early years—2006 was our fifteenth anniversary, and we’ve just concluded our thirty-fifth year. 

This time we decided to ask three teachers about anatta, no-self or not-self. It’s a notoriously difficult concept. It was one of the defining marks of the Buddha’s teaching in the ancient world, and disagreements about anatta probably followed immediately from the idea’s introduction in the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta: “Bhikkhus, form is not-self . . . feeling is not-self. . . .” 

We asked three teachers to tell us their understanding of not-self. It could be their personal understanding, or their teacher’s or tradition’s understanding. In her essay, the American Tibetan nun Bhikshuni Thubten Chodron ties not-self to dependent arising, an equally challenging topic. The Italian-born monastic Ayya Soma connects the idea to gender and identity. And, finally, Rebecca Li, a senior teacher in the Chan Dharma Drum lineage, points out that not-self is not an abstract philosophic notion but is central to the release from attachment and suffering. 

How would you explain anatta? Let us know in the comments!

–The Editors

Bhikshuni Thubten Chodron

As a teenager, I wondered, Do I exist, and if so, who am I and how do I exist? The Buddha answered these questions. Realizing the correct view entails understanding not only that, ultimately, all people and phenomena are empty of inherent existence but also that they exist conventionally. The reasoning of dependent arising, “the king of reasonings,” dispels the two extreme views of reification and nihilism that obstruct understanding the Middle Way. The reasoning of dependent arising leads the meditator to the unfindability (emptiness) of an object—let’s say a book—when sought with ultimate analysis. But the reasoning of dependent arising immediately makes its dependent existence evident. 

This realization is hard to gain, because when we ask, “What is this object really? What does the word ‘book’ actually refer to?” we cannot identify something that is really it. Instead, we find only parts and a name that is associated with the collection of parts. From the perspective of the wisdom analyzing the ultimate nature, the object has disappeared. The temptation here is to then think that the book is totally nonexistent, which is the extreme of nihilism.

But when we come out of our meditation and resume the perspective of our daily life, there is the book, and we can speak about it and read it. In addition, the book appears real to us, as if it had its own intrinsic nature that makes it what it is. Believing that this appearance of an inherently existent book is correct is the extreme of reification.

However, yogis who have realized emptiness don’t believe that the appearance of inherent existence is correct. Instead, they see the book (and everything else) as being like a dream in that the book appears to exist one way (with its own inherent nature), although it is empty of that type of existence. This appearance of an inherently existent book is false. The book doesn’t exist in the way it appears; it is a falsity. 

But if the book is false and we can’t find a real book, how can we read it? The dependently arisen book exists. It exists, but not with its own independent nature. It exists dependent on its causes and conditions (paper, author, and publishing company). It depends on its parts—the pages, cover, and binding. It also depends on our conceptual mind giving that collection of parts the name “book.”

Looking at the world around us, it is clear that things exist dependently. Effects depend on causes. Farmers plant seeds to grow crops; students go to school to learn. We human beings depend on one another to stay alive. Whatever is dependent cannot be independent. We and everything around us does not have our own inherent nature that is unrelated to anything else. Nagarjuna said:

That which is dependent arising 
is explained to be emptiness. 
That, being a dependent arising, 
is itself the middle way.

There does not exist anything 
that is not dependently arisen. 
Therefore there does not exist 
anything that is not empty.

Note: Portions of this article were taken from Realizing the Profound View by H.H. the Dalai Lama with Thubten Chodron.

Ayya Soma

Suffering is difficult to endure, but the teaching of nonself can single-handedly bring this to an end. Knowing this, it can be tempting to resort to ultimate truths like “Why cling to these identities? Ultimately, there is no man, no woman, no self.” However, acting this way usually multiplies our suffering. We cannot intellectualize our way out of suffering, nor forcefully sprint through the training of the mind. As Dogen said, “To study Buddhism is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self.” In other words, we cannot go straight to ending suffering without first understanding exactly what we are looking at.

If we dismiss gender and identity as modern preoccupations irrelevant to the dhamma, early texts tell another story. For example, the Soma Sutta in the Samyutta Nikaya reads remarkably like a modern conversation. The sutta opens with bhikkhuni Soma settling into the quiet of the woods for her daily meditation, when Mara appears attempting to shatter her concentration by whispering in her ear: “That state so hard to achieve which is to be attained by the seers, can’t be attained by a woman with her two-fingered wisdom.” Mara’s message is clear: Biology is destiny, and a woman’s capacity for deep insight is inherently limited by her form.

What is interesting about this sutta is not Mara’s prejudice but how bhikkhuni Soma responds. She does not engage in a metaphysical debate, claim womanhood is superior, deny she is a woman, or spiritualize it away by claiming gender is just an illusion. Instead, she recognizes the absolute irrelevance of Mara’s categories to the unconditioned mind. She turns the mirror back on the defilement itself:

“What does womanhood matter at all, when the mind is concentrated well,
when knowledge flows on steadily, as one sees correctly into Dhamma.”

Soma’s triumph lies in her discernment and clear understanding of the dhamma. She understands that sex and gender are dependently arisen, relative realities—”mere designations,” as MN 98 Vasettha Sutta describes human conventions—on par with the color of one’s skin or the shape of one’s eyes. It possesses no fixed, permanent core and does not define us. Mara’s trap was trying to turn a relative biological form into an absolute spiritual barrier. 

So when talking about anatta, we should be wary of using ultimate truth to invalidate relative suffering or to solidify conditions in our mind as uniquely ours. The Buddha’s path does not ask us to pretend we do not inhabit specific bodies with specific traits or social implications. Rather, it invites us to see these identities clearly without converting temporary worldly designations into mental prisons that impede our spiritual practice.

Bhikkhuni Soma did not achieve liberation by erasing her experience but by refusing to let an external delusion dictate her internal capacity for awakening. Her testimony reminds us that the dhamma is not a tool to bypass our humanity but the very space where we finally understand and transcend it.

Rebecca Li

In Chan practice, the realization of anatta, often translated as no-self, is crucial for liberation from suffering. The process starts with developing a correct understanding of what no-self means. No-self does not mean that we do not exist. We exist each moment as the coming together of constantly changing sensory experiences, thoughts and feelings, habitual reactivities. There is no separate, inherently, independently existing entity (the self) anywhere to be found. Hence, the practice is not about getting rid of the self, as that reinforces the notion that there is an inherently existing entity. In fact, Chan master Sheng Yen spoke of the importance of developing a healthy sense of self—a clear, accurate understanding of our current abilities, worldview, biases, and habitual tendencies that shape the way we interact with others. This allows us to notice how we are influenced by the environment and to recognize how our views (which we often identify as the unchanging essence of our self) are also cocreated and reshaped by changing circumstances. In this way, we come to a more accurate understanding of the true nature of self—manifested as moment-to-moment coming together of causes and conditions—instead of assuming that there is some unchanging essence in us regardless of what we expose our mind to. The same is true with everyone in our life. The person who came home from work is not the same as the one who left the house this morning. Are we here to see them as they are now, or are we seeing only our idea of who they are while ignoring who is here? Forgetting no-self causes suffering for ourselves and others; we make ourselves miserable by defining ourselves by a particular moment, and we leave people feeling unseen and unloved.

As Chan master Sheng Yen said, to realize no-self is not to give rise to self-centered attachment to whatever one experiences. This involves making full contact with the present moment whatever is happening. With clear awareness, we recognize how the habit of self-centered attachment is activated, affording us an opportunity to release the urge to perpetuate this unhelpful habit. For instance, when the temperature is high, the body feels warm and sweaty and looks for ways to cool down. These are natural responses. The habit of self-centered attachment compels us to turn what is experienced into something about me, “I am so hot!” followed by “I hate this heat” and getting agitated. If we connect with the meditative practice of moment-to-moment clear awareness and stop fueling these habitual reactivities, then it is just the present moment as it is. There are no inherently existing entities of “heat” attacking “me.” It’s quite warm sometimes and less so other times. Even when the habit of self-centered attachment is activated, it is not a problem. Recognize that as part of the present moment; no need to turn it into some permanent characteristic of who we are. It is a habit that can be unlearned. As self-centered attachment weakens, there is less suffering.