The Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta is one of the earliest discourses of the Buddha to his students on the Buddhist no-self doctrine. He teaches that: “…[F]orm is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction. Affliction arises because of dissatisfaction with what is, thoughts such as: “Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.” And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: “Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.”
The best example of form in this context is the body. We are constantly troubled by one or more characteristics or conditions of our body.
The Buddha then moves from form to the other four “aggregates”: feeling, perception, mental formations and sense-specific consciousness, thereby stating that all of the aggregates if not properly understood lead to suffering.
The following text follows, first with the aggregate of feeling, followed by perceptions, mental formations and sense-specific consciousness:
“Is feeling permanent or impermanent? — Impermanent, venerable sir. — Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful? — Painful, venerable sir. — Now is what is impermanent, what is painful and subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: This is mine, this is I, this is my self? — No, venerable sir.
So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.
When he finds estrangement, desire fades out. With the fading of desire, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.”
This text is most difficult to grasp, but when properly understood, takes one to a space of tremendous peace. It allows us to sever identification to everything about us that is temporal and leads to suffering. However, when those false identifications are severed, we are left with the question: “If I am not the body or any of the other four aggregates, then WHO AM I?”
Whereas Buddhists cite this and other Buddhist texts in support of its no-self doctrine (“Anatta”), Hindu texts such as the Upanishads speak of the real Self (“Atman”), and this conflict in doctrine created centuries of argument between the Buddhists and the Hindus. Notably, Adi Shankara’s 8th-century methods of self-inquiry bear similarities to the Buddha’s teachings in this sutta.
A point of contention arises from Buddhism’s acceptance of reincarnation alongside the denial of a fixed self. Attempts to reconcile these concepts often prove unsatisfactory. Personally, I find the concept of an eternal, unchanging Self, distinct from the five aggregates, more compelling.
Furthermore, the Buddhist emphasis on the cessation of suffering overlooks the experience of joy. Hinduism, by contrast, characterizes the Self as bliss eternal (ananda). This difference reflects a fundamental divergence in how these traditions conceptualize the nature of reality and the ultimate goal of spiritual practice.
