The Characteristic of Nonself
- 20 hours ago
- 4 min read
The Buddha's words
Anattalakkhaṇasutta SN 22.59 https://suttacentral.net/sn22.59
THUS I HAVE HEARD. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Baraṇasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana. There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five thus: “Bhikkhus!”
“Venerable sir!” those bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:
“Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’
“Feeling is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, feeling were self, this feeling would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of feeling: ‘Let my feeling be thus; let my feeling not be thus.’ But because feeling is nonself, feeling leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of feeling: ‘Let my feeling be thus; let my feeling not be thus.’
“Perception is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, perception were self, this perception would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of perception: ‘Let my perception be thus; let my perception not be thus.’ But because perception is nonself, perception leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of perception: ‘Let my perception be thus; let my perception not be thus.’
“Volitional formations are nonself. For if, bhikkhus, volitional formations were self, these volitional formations would not lead to affliction, and they would be possible to have them of volitional formations: ‘Let my volitional formations be thus; let my volitional formations not be thus.’ But because volitional formations are nonself, volitional formations lead to affliction, and they is not possible to have them of volitional formations: ‘Let my volitional formations be thus; let my volitional formations not be thus.’
“Consciousness is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’ But because consciousness is nonself, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’
“What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”
“Is feeling permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”
“Is perception permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”
“Are volitional formations permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”
“Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”— “Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”
“Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all form should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
“Any kind of feeling whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all feeling should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
“Any kind of perception whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all perception should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
“Any kind of volitional formations whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all volitional formations should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
“Any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
“Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards form, revulsion towards feeling, revulsion towards perception, revulsion towards volitional formations, revulsion towards consciousness. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’”
That is what the Blessed One said. Elated, those bhikkhus delighted in the Blessed One’s statement. And while this discourse was being spoken, the minds of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from the taints by nonclinging.