To understand what is no-self 1, let’s discuss about the concept of self, its counterpart first. We can tackle the concept of self in two different dimensions. One is about philosophical understanding and the other is referring to an embodiment understanding, i.e. the self embodied in a sentient being. The philosophical understanding of self can be illustrated as follows:
Given the subject A which is at the moment t1, can have its intrinsic nature exactly the same in the next moment, let say t2. This is the true meaning of self. ‘Self’ thus refers to this total self-sustainable process. According to the Buddhist theory of momentary (doctrine of impermanence), once a dharma can hold its intrinsic nature for more then a moment, then it can hold its intrinsic nature forever. This is commonly understood as sassatavada, in Chinese, 常見. This is what Buddhist strongly against! Then what is the meaning of no-self in Buddhist sense? could it be understood as follows:
This might be an intuitive understanding but it is definitely wrong. Though this illustration does can adequately reflect the idea of impermanence or change, however, it cannot reflect the inter-relation be A and ~A. This understanding is commonly understood as ucchedavada, in Chinese, 斷見. This is also strongly against by Buddhist.
After rejecting the above two extreme views (邊見), then what is the correct understanding of no-self in buddhist philosophy? It is best to be illustrated as follows:
This is the true meaning no-self!
Note:
- anātman(skt) is usually translated as 無我 in Chinese. However, In English, there are at least three differnent translations such as no-self, non-self and not-self. May I suggest that the corresponding Chinese translations can be 無我, 否我 and 非我.