Samyutta Nikāya - Connected Discourses on the Aggregates 22.59

SN22:59 The Characteristic of Nonself

DG BB TBW © Translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Bodhi. (More copyright information)

1Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Baraṇasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana. [n.90] This is the second discourse of the Buddha, recorded at Vin I 13–14. The five bhikkhus are the first five disciples, who at this point are still trainees (sekha). They attain arahantship by the end of the discourse. Spk: Following the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (the first sermon), given on the full-moon day of Asaḷha (July), the five were gradually established in the fruit of stream-entry. On the fifth of the following fortnight, he addressed them, thinking, "Now I will teach them the Dhamma for the destruction of the taints." There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five thus: "Bhikkhus!"

"Venerable sir!" those bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:

2"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.’ [n.91] The sutta offers two "arguments" for the nattā thesis. The first demonstrates the selfless nature of the five aggregates on the ground that they are insusceptible to the exercise of mastery (avasavattitā). If anything is to count as our "self" it must be subject to our volitional control; since, however, we cannot bend the five aggregates to our will, they are all subject to affliction and therefore cannot be our self. For a fuller presentation of this argument, see MN I 230–33. The second argument for anattā is introduced just below, beginning with the words "What do you think? … " This argument demonstrates the characteristic of nonself on the basis of the other two characteristics, impermanence and suffering, taken conjointly.

3Feeling 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.’ sn.iii.67

4Perception 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 it would be possible to have it 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 it is not possible to have it of volitional formations: ‘Let my volitional formations be thus; let my volitional formations not be thus.’

5Consciousness 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.’

6"What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, venerable sir."

"Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?"

"Suffering, venerable sir."