Philosophy › Before Socrates & the first sages › Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha
No-self (anatta) and impermanence
c. 5th century BC· Idea or argument· Asian traditions
Mostly agreedGood evidence; some details uncertain.
The Buddhist teaching that there is no permanent self (anatta; Sanskrit anatman) and that all things are impermanent (anicca).
See it on the Philosophy map →The idea
Idea: what we call 'I' is a changing bundle of five processes: body, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. Reasoning: examine each and none is permanent or fully under your control, so none can be a true self; clinging to a self causes suffering. A famous image: a chariot is only its parts arranged, and 'chariot' is a convenient label, so too 'self'. Main objection: if there is no self, who is reborn and who bears karma?
Why it matters
It is Buddhism's sharpest break with Hindu thought and anticipates modern personal-identity debates in Hume and Parfit.
Where it comes from
Taught in the Anattalakkhana Sutta, traditionally the Buddha's second sermon; the chariot image comes from the Questions of King Milinda (c. 100 BC–AD 200).
Still debated
Whether the Buddha denied any self at all, or only warned against identifying with body and mind, is still debated among scholars and schools.
Connections (5)
▸Brahman and Atman: the self and ultimate reality was rejected by No-self (anatta) and impermanenceWell documented
The connection
The Upanishads claim a permanent true self (atman) one with Brahman. The Buddha's no-self teaching denies exactly this: search body, feelings or mind for a permanent self and you find only changing processes. The two views became the dividing line between Hindu and Buddhist philosophy.
When and how
Northern India, 5th century BC; argued for over a thousand years afterward by Hindu and Buddhist scholars such as Shankara and Dharmakirti.
How we know
The Pali term anatta ('not-self') is the direct negation of atta, the Pali form of atman, suggesting the target was deliberate.
Debates and open questions
Some scholars argue the Buddha rejected only a mistaken sense of self, not the Upanishadic atman itself; most still read it as a real rejection.
▸Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha taught No-self (anatta) and impermanenceWell documented
The connection
In his second sermon, to the same five monks, the Buddha took body, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness in turn, asking whether each is permanent and under control. Each time they answered no, concluding none is the self. Hearing it, the five reportedly became fully awakened.
When and how
Sarnath, India, days after his first sermon, 5th century BC.
How we know
Recorded in the Anattalakkhana Sutta of the Pali Canon, with parallels in Chinese translations of early Indian collections.
Debates and open questions
Whether he taught 'there is no self' or only 'these things are not self', leaving the deeper question open, is debated.
▸No-self (anatta) and impermanence anticipated the bundle view of the self in David HumeDebated
The connection
Some 2,200 years before Hume, Buddhist teaching held there is no permanent self (anatta), only changing physical and mental processes. Hume, looking inward, found only 'a bundle or collection of different perceptions' and no self behind them. The views are strikingly alike, though the Buddha drew a path to liberation from the insight and Hume did not.
When and how
The Buddha taught in northern India around the 5th century BC; Hume set out his bundle view in the Treatise of Human Nature, Book 1 (1739).
How sure are we?
The parallel is plain in the texts. Influence is unproven: Alison Gopnik showed in 2009 that Hume could have heard of Buddhism from a Jesuit, Charles François Dolu, at La Flèche.
Debates and open questions
Whether Hume knew anything of Buddhism while writing the Treatise in France (1734–37), or reached the same view independently, remains open.
▸No-self (anatta) and impermanence was extended into Emptiness (sunyata) and the two truthsMostly agreed
The connection
The Buddha taught that a person has no permanent self, only changing parts. Early Abhidharma scholars still treated those parts (dharmas) as real building blocks. Madhyamaka extended no-self to everything: the parts too lack independent essence. Emptiness is no-self applied to the whole world.
When and how
India, from the Buddha's teaching (5th century BC) through the Abhidharma schools to Nagarjuna (c. AD 150).
How sure are we?
Madhyamaka texts explicitly distinguish 'no-self of persons' from 'no-self of phenomena' and argue against Abhidharma realism about dharmas.
Debates and open questions
Whether early Buddhist texts already implied that everything is empty, or the Mahayana added it, is debated.
▸No-self (anatta) and impermanence anticipated the personal-identity view of Derek Parfit, Reasons and PersonsMostly agreed
The connection
The Buddha taught that the self is a changing bundle of processes with no permanent core. Parfit reached a similar conclusion through thought experiments: there is no deep further fact about personal identity, only degrees of psychological connection. He noticed the parallel himself and said the Buddha would have agreed with him.
When and how
Oxford, 1984: Parfit, a fellow of All Souls College, made the comparison in Reasons and Persons, Appendix J, quoting classical Buddhist texts.
How sure are we?
Parfit's own appendix states the parallel; scholars of Buddhist philosophy, notably Mark Siderits in Personal Identity and Buddhist Philosophy (2003), have since compared the two views in detail.
Debates and open questions
Parfit reached his view independently, so this is a parallel more than an influence; how close the views are is debated, since Buddhism ties no-self to rebirth and liberation.