The Case of a Misconceived Question

Many Buddhists are very confused about Buddha’s teaching of Anatta. Here I am making a case for rejecting both the existence and non-existence of the self as equally erroneous views. It hinges on the Buddhist understanding of the self as an illusion. I will provide a well-rounded critique of both eternalism and annihilationism using Buddhist doctrine and contemporary neuroscience.

1. Buddha’s Teaching on the Illusion of the Self: In Buddhism, the concept of anatta (non-self) teaches that the self is not a permanent, independent entity. Instead, what we perceive as the self is a collection of aggregates — form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness — that are constantly changing. The Sabbāsava Sutta (MN 2), as Bhikkhu Sujato’s translation indicates, dismisses both eternalism (“My self survives”) and annihilationism (“My self does not survive”) as incorrect views.
2. The Absurdity of Annihilationism: Annihilationism is founded on the assumption that a self exists during life, which is then annihilated at death. However, the Buddha taught that this self is an illusion in the first place — it does not truly exist, even while we are alive. As such, annihilationism is built on a false premise, which leads to the absurdity of claiming that something non-existent can be destroyed. This critique aligns with the analogy of asking whether a computer is…