Non-self
Anattā (non-self) is the finding that everything one can experience—form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness—is impermanent and subject to change, and therefore should not be regarded as "this is mine, this I am, this is my self." The teaching loosens clinging to the five aggregates and aims at the cessation of suffering; it is not the claim that persons do not exist.
Read the full sutta: Alagaddūpama Sutta (MN 22) — The Simile of the Snake and the Raft: full text →Related: How to Practice Satipaṭṭhāna: The Four Establishments of Mindfulness · Facing Criticism and Slander · How Do You Let Go? The Buddha's Seven Methods for Removing Defilements
What the word is saying
The Pali word anattā combines the negative prefix an- with attā ("self"; cognate with Sanskrit ātman), giving "non-self" or "not-self." In the Indian thought of the Buddha's day, attā denoted a permanent, unchanging, autonomous self. Notably, in the Snake Simile Sutta (MN 22) the Buddha does not open with an abstract definition. He lists six "standpoints for views"—the places where an uninstructed person seizes experience as "me": form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, everything seen, heard, sensed, and cognized, and even the view "the world is the self; after death I shall be permanent." From the outset, anattā is an examination of this act of seizing, not a metaphysical proclamation about whether persons exist.
Chayimāni bhikkhave diṭṭhiṭṭhānāni
諸比丘，有此六種見之所依處。
Katamāni cha
哪六種？
Idha bhikkhave assutavā puthujjano ariyānaṁ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto sappurisānaṁ adassāvī sappurisadhammassa akovido sappurisadhamme avinīto
諸比丘，此處未多聞的凡夫，不親近聖者、對聖法不善巧、於聖法中未受調教，不親近善士、對善士法不善巧、於善士法中未受調教。
The formula: six standpoints, two ways of regarding
The sutta works with a fixed formula. The uninstructed worldling regards form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, all that is seen, heard, sensed, and cognized—and even the view "the world is the self; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, unchanging"—as "this is mine, this I am, this is my self" (etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā). The instructed noble disciple regards the very same six standpoints as "this is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self." The passage sets one list against two ways of looking: the difference lies not in what the world presents, but in whether it is grasped as "me." This threefold negation is the core sentence pattern by which the Pali suttas express non-self.
rūpaṁ etaṁ mama esohamasmi eso me attā ti samanupassati
〔他〕觀色為：『此是我的，這就是我，這是我的自我。』
vedanaṁ etaṁ mama esohamasmi eso me attā ti samanupassati
〔他〕觀受為：『此是我的，這就是我，這是我的自我。』
saññaṁ etaṁ mama esohamasmi eso me attā ti samanupassati
對於想，他觀見為：「此是我的，此即是我，此是我的自我。」
saṅkhāre etaṁ mama esohamasmi eso me attā ti samanupassati
對於諸行，他觀見為：「此是我的，此即是我，此是我的自我。」
rūpaṁ netaṁ mama nesohamasmi na meso attā ti samanupassati
色，他觀見為：「此非我的，此非我，此非我的自我。」
vedanaṁ netaṁ mama nesohamasmi na meso attā ti samanupassati
受，他觀見為：「此非我的，此非我，此非我的自我。」
saññaṁ netaṁ mama nesohamasmi na meso attā ti samanupassati
想，他觀見為：「此非我的，此非我，此非我的自我。」
saṅkhāre netaṁ mama nesohamasmi na meso attā ti samanupassati
對於諸行，他如實觀察：「這不是我的，這不是我，這不是我的自我。」
Why none of it qualifies as "self": the impermanence test
The Buddha does not ask his students to accept non-self as a slogan; he tests it step by step. Is form permanent or impermanent?—Impermanent. Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?—Suffering. And is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded as "this is mine, this I am, this is my self"?—No. The same catechism is applied to feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness. The sutta then generalizes: any form (and so on through consciousness)—past, future, or present, internal or external, coarse or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—should be seen with right wisdom as it really is: "this is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self." The lever of the argument is impermanence: whatever cannot be held and must change fails the very definition of a permanent, autonomous self.
rūpaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā ti
色是常的，還是無常的？
Aniccaṁ bhante
無常的，尊者。
Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā ti
那麼，凡是無常的，是苦的，還是樂的？
Dukkhaṁ bhante
苦的，尊者。
Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ
凡是無常的、苦的、具變易本質者，難道適合將彼如此看待嗎？
etaṁ mama esohamasmi eso me attā ti
「這是我的、我即是這個、這是我的自我」嗎？
No hetaṁ bhante
不，尊者，確實不是的。
"It is not yours: let it go"
After the examination comes the famous teaching passage. The Buddha says: "Whatever is not yours, abandon it; when you have abandoned it, that will be for your welfare and happiness for a long time." And what is not yours? Form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness. He then draws on the scene at hand: if people carried off, burned, or did what they liked with the grass, sticks, branches, and leaves in Jeta's Grove, would you think, "They are carrying us off, doing what they like with us"? No, the monks reply—"because that is neither our self nor what belongs to our self." So too, the Buddha says, with the five aggregates. This passage turns non-self from theory into a stance: one can relate to the aggregates as to leaves in the grove—used, but not claimed as "me."
Tasmātiha bhikkhave yaṁ na tumhākaṁ taṁ pajahatha
因此，比丘們，凡不屬於你們的，你們捨棄它。
taṁ vo pahīnaṁ dīgharattaṁ hitāya sukhāya bhavissati
那——[vo 資料不足]——已捨棄者，將會長久地帶來利益與安樂。
No hetaṁ bhante
「不，世尊，確實不是這樣。」
Taṁ kissa hetu
那是為何原因？
Na hi no etaṁ bhante attā vā attaniyaṁ vā ti
「尊者，那非自我、亦非屬己。」
Evameva kho bhikkhave yaṁ na tumhākaṁ taṁ pajahatha
諸比丘，正是如此——凡不屬於你們的，就捨棄它。
Non-self is not annihilation: "I declare only suffering and its cessation"
MN 22 records directly that some ascetics and brahmins accused the Buddha of being an annihilationist who taught the destruction of an existing being. The Buddha flatly denies it, calling the charge baseless and false, and gives his most compact summary of the teaching: "Both formerly and now, what I declare is suffering and the cessation of suffering." The sutta also anticipates the psychology of misreading non-self: someone hears the Dhamma taught for the stilling of craving and the ending of clinging and panics—"I will be annihilated! I will not exist!"—and grieves, beating his breast. The text traces this terror to the prior view of a permanent self: only if one first assumes such a self can the teaching sound like its destruction. The anxiety about annihilation rests on the very premise that non-self examines.
venayiko samaṇo gotamo sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññāpetī ti
「沙門瞿曇是斷滅論者——（宣說）執著眾生之截斷、消滅、衰滅。」
Yathā cāhaṁ na bhikkhave yathā cāhaṁ na vadāmi tathā maṁ te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asatā tucchā musā abhūtena abbhācikkhanti
諸比丘，我並非如（他們所說那樣）宣說；那些尊貴的沙門婆羅門們以不真實的、空洞的、謊言的、未曾有的言論誣謗我。
venayiko samaṇo gotamo sato sattassa ucchedaṁ vināsaṁ vibhavaṁ paññāpetī ti
「沙門瞿曇是斷滅論者——（宣說）執著眾生之截斷、消滅、衰滅。」
Pubbe cāhaṁ bhikkhave etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi dukkhassa ca nirodhaṁ
諸比丘，先前以及現在，我所宣說的只是苦與苦的止息。
Tassa evaṁ hoti
彼如是生起（念頭）：
ucchijjissāmi nāmassu vinassissāmi nāmassu nassu nāma bhavissāmī ti
「我將被滅除！我將滅亡！我將不存在！」
So socati kilamati paridevati urattāḷiṁ kandati sammohaṁ āpajjati
他悲傷、憔悴、哀嘆、捶胸、號哭，陷入迷妄。
Evaṁ kho bhikkhu ajjhattaṁ asati paritassanā hotī ti
「如是，確實，比丘，內在不存在之時，有動搖。」
"No-self" or "not-self"? A modern interpretive debate
Modern readers often debate whether anattā is a metaphysical thesis ("there is no self") or a practical strategy ("regard nothing as self"). Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu argues for the latter: "not-self" is a way of looking adopted in order to let go of clinging, and the Buddha never directly answered "does the self exist?" Mainstream scholarship and the traditional commentaries generally read it as doctrine: the suttas' examination exhausts every candidate and no self is found. MN 22 supplies texts for both sides. On one hand, the Buddha states that "a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established," and calls the view "the world is the self; after death I shall be permanent" a "completely and perfectly foolish teaching." On the other, the sutta's whole weight falls on relinquishment—even the Dhamma is a raft to be let go of. This page does not adjudicate between the readings; the passages are here for readers to weigh.
Attani ca bhikkhave attaniye ca saccato thetato anupalabbhamāne yampi taṁ diṭṭhiṭṭhānaṁ
諸比丘，若自我與我所，就真實而言、就確實而言均不可得，那凡是那見地的立足點——
so loko so attā so pecca bhavissāmi nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo sassatisamaṁ tatheva ṭhassāmī ti
「世間即是自我；我死後將成為那個（自我），常住、固定、恆久、本質不變易，永永遠遠確實如此。」
nanāyaṁ bhikkhave kevalo paripūro bāladhammo ti
比丘們，這難道不正是完全充滿的愚人之法嗎？
Taṁ bhikkhave attavādupādānaṁ upādiyetha yaṁsa attavādupādānaṁ upādiyato na uppajjeyyuṁ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā
「比丘們，有沒有那樣的我論取，一旦執取它，對於執取者而言，愁、悲、苦、憂、惱就不會生起？」
Why teach non-self: from disenchantment to release, the Dhamma as a raft
The examination has a stated practical purpose. Seeing in this way, the sutta says, the instructed noble disciple becomes disenchanted with form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness; disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate; through dispassion he is liberated; when liberated, the knowledge arises: "liberated"—"birth is ended, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done." This matches the Buddha's own summary: he teaches suffering and its cessation. Hence the raft simile earlier in the sutta sets the tone for the whole discourse: the Dhamma is taught "for crossing over, not for holding on to"—"you should abandon even the teachings, how much more so what is contrary to them." Non-self is not a new view to cling to, but a tool that puts views themselves under examination.
Evaṁ passaṁ bhikkhave sutavā ariyasāvako rūpasmiṁ nibbindati vedanāya nibbindati saññāya nibbindati saṅkhāresu nibbindati viññāṇasmiṁ nibbindati
諸比丘，如此觀察，博學的聖弟子對色厭離，對受厭離，對想厭離，對行厭離，對識厭離。
nibbidā virajjati virāgā vimuccati vimuttasmiṁ vimuttamiti ñāṇaṁ hoti
厭離則離染，由離染而解脫；於解脫時，生起『已解脫』之智。
Khīṇā jāti vusitaṁ brahmacariyaṁ kataṁ karaṇīyaṁ nāparaṁ itthattāyā ti pajānāti
他清楚地了知：『生已盡，梵行已立，應作已作，此後不再（有輪迴）。』
Evameva kho bhikkhave kullūpamo mayā dhammo desito nittharaṇatthāya no gahaṇatthāya
諸比丘，同樣地，我以如筏之喻宣說法，是為了渡越的目的，而非為了執取的目的。
Kullūpamaṁ vo bhikkhave dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānantehi dhammāpi vo pahātabbā pageva adhammā
諸比丘，對了知如筏喻之法者，法也應當捨棄，何況非法。
Relation to Mahāyāna interpretation
Later Buddhist traditions developed the teaching further. Abhidharma and Mahāyāna treatises distinguish two levels: the "selflessness of persons" (pudgala-nairātmya, essentially what this page describes—the aggregates are not self) and the "selflessness of dharmas" (dharma-nairātmya, that all phenomena lack intrinsic nature). The Madhyamaka school extends the negation to all phenomena as "emptiness" (śūnyatā), presenting this as the full working-out of non-self. In another direction, tathāgatagarbha ("buddha-nature") thought uses affirmative language of an abiding buddha-nature in all beings; how this relates to non-self has been an important question within Buddhism itself—some traditions treat such language as skillful means, others as definitive and reconcilable with non-self. These are later interpretations and developments; this page presents only the usage found in the Pali text and does not adjudicate among them.
What is the difference between "no-self" and "not-self"?
Both translate the same Pali word, anattā; the difference is interpretive. "No-self" reads it ontologically (no self exists); "not-self" reads it strategically (regard no experience as self). This is a modern debate, not two different Pali terms. In MN 22, the statement that "a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established" is often cited for the "no-self" reading, while "it is not yours: let it go" and the raft simile are often cited for the "not-self" reading.
Does anatta mean that I don't exist?
The suttas put it more precisely: they examine form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness, and all experience, and find that what is impermanent and subject to change should not be regarded as "this is mine, this I am, this is my self." MN 22 also records the Buddha explicitly denying the charge that he taught the annihilation of an existing being—he declares only "suffering and the cessation of suffering." Anatta denies that a permanent, autonomous self can be found in the aggregates; it does not deny the continuity of experience, action, and practice.
Doesn't anatta contradict rebirth?
"If there is no self, who is reborn?" is a question raised since ancient times in Buddhist history. The canonical tradition's general answer is dependent origination: mental and physical processes continue, conditioned by craving and kamma, without requiring an unchanging subject to carry them—just as in MN 22 the Buddha rejects both a permanent post-mortem self and the annihilation of a being. Whether this fully dissolves the puzzle has been assessed differently by interpreters ancient and modern; this site presents the positions without adjudicating.
Which sutta teaches anatta?
Non-self runs throughout the Pali Canon as one of the three marks of existence (impermanence, suffering, non-self). The most famous dedicated discourse is the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta (SN 22.59), traditionally regarded as the Buddha's second sermon to the first five monks. The Snake Simile Sutta (MN 22), on which this page is based, preserves the six-standpoints examination, the "it is not yours" teaching, and the Buddha's reply to the annihilationism charge, making it one of the most important texts for understanding non-self in context.
What happens when someone sees non-self?
MN 22 gives an explicit sequence: seeing in this way, the instructed noble disciple becomes disenchanted with form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness; disenchantment leads to dispassion, dispassion to liberation, and with liberation comes the knowledge "liberated"—"birth is ended, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done." The sutta describes such a monk as having abandoned ignorance, craving, and the conceit "I am"—"the burden lowered, the fetters shed."