The Logic of Not-self

Sometimes you hear the teaching on not-self presented as a question of formal logic. You start with the premise that a self, to qualify as a self, has to mean permanent self. The second premise is: Look at what you are. You’re just five aggregates: form, feeling, perceptions, thought constructs, and consciousness, all of which are impermanent. Then there’s the conclusion, “Therefore, you don’t have a self.”

It’s worth noting that the Buddha himself never used this argument. It started later in the commentaries. After all, he noted that many different versions of self were taught in his time, and not all of them were permanent. Some were explicitly impermanent, even in the Upanishads, which we tend to think teach nothing but a permanent cosmic self. Actually, there are many Upanishadic ideas of the self that are impermanent. So if the Buddha was going to limit the meaning of “self” to permanent self, he would have had to explain why. He never did.

Now, there is a passage in the Canon where the Buddha says, “The eye is not self, because the arising of the eye can be seen, and the passing away of the eye can be seen.” He applies this to all the six senses, the objects of the senses, contact at the senses, consciousness at the senses. You can see these things arise; you can see them pass away, therefore they’re not self. From this, some people draw the conclusion, “This means that for the Buddha, ‘self’ must have meant ‘permanent self.’” But that’s not the case. If you see something arise, it just can’t be your self, regardless of whether you believe in an impermanent self or a permanent self, connected, unconnected, separate, whatever. If you see something arise, it can’t be you, if you see something pass away, it can’t be you, because you’re there to see it arise, you’re there to see it pass away.

We have to note that the Buddha never made a distinction between your sense of self and your sense of what you are. “Self” comes down to the belief, “I am this,” and that can apply to all kinds of things.

However, the main problem with the interpretation that “self” has to mean “permanent self” is that it really limits the range and the force of that not-self teaching. It means that the not-self teaching can apply only to ideas of permanent self, which means further that it can liberate you only from clinging to a permanent self. But what if you believe in an impermanent self? Is it still okay to hold on to that? Are you still supposed to cling to that idea? And is there something special about the idea of a permanent self that makes it a lot more conducive to suffering than the idea of an impermanent self? When dogs are suffering, are they suffering because of the idea of a permanent self? I’ve heard people say that when you realize that there is no permanent self, that puts an end to suffering, in that the cause of suffering is an idea of permanent self. But ask dogs. Ask little children who don’t know any language. They suffer, and it’s certainly not because they have an idea of permanent self. So by limiting self, attā, to mean permanent self, you limit the power of the not-self teaching. It can’t do away with all forms of suffering that relate to ideas of self.

There is an alternative way of looking at the logic of not-self, but it depends on a different kind of logic entirely—a more psychological type of logic.

Its reasoning starts with the desire to find happiness and pleasure. As the Buddha noted, even though he would say many, many times that the aggregates are inconstant, stressful, and not-self, he did admit that they do have their pleasurable side. As he said, if they didn’t have that pleasurable side, we wouldn’t have passion for them. We wouldn’t delight in them.

Now, passion and delight: That’s the definition of clinging. One of the ways we cling is through our ideas of self. We create a sense of self around the aggregates, either identifying directly with the aggregates or believing that we own the aggregates or that we are in the aggregates or the aggregates are in us.

For example, you may decide that you are your consciousness. Consciousness may be impersonal, but you can still identify with it, have a sense of self around it, even if you don’t define it as a person. You may sense that your consciousness owns the aggregates, in which case you might be a permanent owner or an impermanent owner. As for the idea of being in the aggregates, you can think of your consciousness as being in the body, or that the aggregates are in you. Or you may have a sense of a cosmic consciousness which contains the aggregates. These are the different ways in which we define ourselves. And in all these cases, the self could be permanent or impermanent.

But we build an identity around the aggregates because we get some pleasure out of them. We see that it’s worth our while to identify with them. And this precisely is what the non-self teaching is calling into question. Are they really worth identifying with? In the beginning, the answer is a qualified Yes: As you’re on the path, you actually use skillful versions of the aggregates to create the pleasure of concentration and the pleasure that comes with following the precepts. There’s even pleasure in discernment, the perceptions that develop discernment, and there’s an extent to which you have to create a sense of self around these activities if you want to master them.

This is why the Buddha says that the self is its own mainstay—and that you can use your self as a governing principle. What that means is that if you’re tempted to fall away from the path, you can remind yourself that you got on this path because you loved yourself and you wanted to put an end to your suffering. If you give up now, do you not love yourself anymore?

So the sense of self does have its positive uses. There really is pleasure that comes from it, especially when you master the skills of concentration. When you tell yourself, “I can do this, and I’m going to enjoy this.” In fact, your sense of self is even part of your motivation for taking on the teaching on non-self to begin with. As the Buddha said, “Let go of what’s not yours. That will be for your long-term welfare and happiness.” Listen to that: your long-term welfare and happiness.

So there is an extent to which your sense of self has its uses, just as there’s an extent to which the aggregates do provide pleasure, even on the path. This is why you shouldn’t reject them, and why you shouldn’t try to do away with your sense of self before it’s shown how useful it can be.

But then there will come a point when you’ve got the mind as still as you can manage, as peaceful as you can manage, and yet there will still be a sense of dissatisfaction because the concentration is something that’s fabricated, something you have to put together.

This is where you have to think about the third noble truth. The Buddha is saying that there is a cessation of suffering, a total cessation of suffering, the ultimate happiness that comes from letting go. In the context of keeping that truth in mind, then you can apply the perception of non-self even to the skills you’ve developed as a meditator.

Notice the logic in this case: You held on to the aggregates that comprise the path because these things provided you with pleasure. But then you realize that holding on is getting in the way of a greater pleasure. This gives you good reason to let go. That’s the logic. But the logic works only in the context of the third noble truth.

Without that third noble truth, you might tell yourself, “Well, even though this concentration is fabricated and has to be maintained, still, this is the best happiness there is, so I might as well hold on.” But when the Buddha says, “By letting go, by developing dispassion for these things, there’s an even greater happiness,” you’re willing to let go for the sake of a higher happiness.

So that’s the logic of non-self. It’s not a question of formal logic. It has more to do with the logic of your desire for happiness and your sense of what’s worth doing in the quest for that happiness.

It’s best to understand the teaching of non-self in this way, because then it can apply to any way you might cling to any sense of self: permanent, impermanent, connected, separate, whatever.

The Buddha was thorough. He saw clinging in all of its forms and taught us to see clinging within ourselves in all of its possible forms. Then he taught us to use this logic—the logic of wanting to find the ultimate happiness—to get past all that clinging. When there’s no more clinging, there’s no more suffering. That’s where this path is headed.