The Implications of Anatta

One of Buddha’s key teachings is Anatta. But it is also a teaching that is not well understood. This teaching also has serious practical implications, many of which are political in nature. It has the potential of contradicting or subverting other Buddhist teachings such as karma. Buddhists debate whether Anatta should be translated as “no self” or “not self.” To many people, the translation of Anatta as “not self” is more palatable. It is not so difficult to accept that there is no unchangeable or independent self. Impermanence and interdependence are facts that cannot be denied. They are properties that can be observed empirically and scientifically.

But the translation of Anatta into “no self” is more problematic for many Buddhists. The Chinese translation of the term is definitely “no self.” The Chinese translated one of the Three Marks of Existence as “all dharmas (i.e. phenomena) are without self.” We may consider the interpretation of Anatta as no-self a strong form of the doctrine. It goes beyond saying that this body is not the self and this mind is not the self. Rather, it says that what we call the “self” is an illusion and a phantom. It boldly states that the self does not exist at all.

To understand why people object to the straightforward translation of Anatta into “no self,” let us look at a few implications: