The Case of a Misconceived Question
3 min readSep 8, 2024
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.
- 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.
- 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…