The concept of "No Self", "No I" or "No Soul" is very difficult to comprehend and accept, even for experienced Buddhists. As such the following explanation will not be clear or satisfactory for many. Despite its difficulties, it is an integral aspect of Buddhist philosophy and it is most worthwhile to delve deeper into by reading the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Sutra. Both are rather difficult to grasp immediately, so it will take many frustrating readings to begin to understand its profound message.
One aspect of no self pertains to the idea that what we consider our self is not actually anything permanent or unchanging and anything that is impermanent is without self. And since everything we perceive with our senses is always changing, nothing we see, smell, taste, touch, hear has a self. For clarity, think of a car, you can picture a car and define a car. We all know what we think a car is. However, what if we start taking away its wheels, then its seats, then its doors, at what point is the car no longer a car but a collection of parts? Similarly a person is made up of a head, body, arms and legs, eyes, etc., but if we start removing body parts would he cease to be a person? Some people may contend that what makes a person is not the body parts but our feelings. But where does our feelings come from, if not from our senses and our mind, which are all just products of our surroundings. If we strip away our ability to see, feel, taste, hear and smell and our ability to think, are we then no longer human, no longer a self? "look upon the body as unreal, an image in the mirror, a reflection of the moon in water."
Another aspect of no self is the belief that what we consider "I" is not really "I". For example, if you were to think of yourself, how would you describe yourself- your age, your gender, your job, etc. However, our age is ever changing. Is your "I" today the same or different from your "I" 10 years ago? 20 years ago? Although we might still carry some characteristics of our younger selves, we have also certainly undergone significant changes as well. As an example, pretend that you committed a horrible crime when you were 20 years old, for which you were sentenced to life in prison without parole. You in fact committed the crime. Now suppose it is 20 years later and you have completely reformed and is living a completely pure and peaceful life. You in fact have reformed. Do you think the 40 year old you is the same person as the 20 year old you? If no, then does it mean people cannot change? If yes, then does it mean you should be released from prison? Or is it that in some ways we are the same person and in some ways we are not. Similarly, the Buddha used the example of a candle when describing the non-existence of a self. Suppose you light a candle and there is a flame. Now suppose that fire goes out, and you put it back- is the second flame the same as the first or is it different? The fuel is the same, it's ignition was the same, but it would be hard to say that it is exactly the same flame.
The third aspect of no self is the Buddhist belief that there is no permanent soul. If you are like me, your first reaction is confusion because how can we have reincarnation without the soul? What is being reincarnated then? Here the Buddha answered, when questioned by Kutadanta, that; "There is rebirth of character, but no transmigration of self. Your thoughts-form reappear, but there is no ego-entity transferred. The stanza uttered by a teacher is reborn in the scholar who repeats the words. Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existing entities." In this quote, I believe the Buddha is saying the products of our actions (causes) and the resulting effects (karma) transmigrate, but that there is no soul attached to those actions and karma. But that in turn begs the question; if who reincarnates is not our "selves" is it really fair that they should reap the effects of our actions? To this the Buddha answered; "You yourself will reap what you sow, not others. Think of a man who is uneducated and destitute. As a boy he was a sloth and indolent, and when he grew up he had not endeavored to learn a craft to earn a living. Would you say his misery is not the product of his own action, because the adult is not longer the same person as the boy. I say no to you: Not if you hide yourself away in the clefts of the mountains, will you find a place where you can escape the fruit of evil actions." This explanation is an elaboration of the previous example given for no "I". It contends that though a person might share some similar qualities as their former selves, you would not say they are one in the same. Despite that, when one's actions and karma reincarnates, the new being is both the same and not the same as the one that died.
Therefore, what we have always believed to be "self" was only the illusion of self, and it was the urge to hold on to this illusion which was the main cause of craving and rebirth. The Buddha reasoned that if a self did exist then it would be the root of suffering, and that if it was eternal then there would be no escape from suffering. So rather than a permanent soul, what we perceive to be our "self" is merely a composite of form, feeling, perception, conception, and consciousness (five skandhas or five aggregates). Accordingly, once a person can accept this, then he stops clinging to his self, desire fades, and he is liberated from the cycle of suffering.
"There is a path to walk on, there is walking being done, but there is no traveler. There are deeds being done, but there is no doer. There is blowing of the air, but there is no wind that does the blowing"
~the Buddha
One aspect of no self pertains to the idea that what we consider our self is not actually anything permanent or unchanging and anything that is impermanent is without self. And since everything we perceive with our senses is always changing, nothing we see, smell, taste, touch, hear has a self. For clarity, think of a car, you can picture a car and define a car. We all know what we think a car is. However, what if we start taking away its wheels, then its seats, then its doors, at what point is the car no longer a car but a collection of parts? Similarly a person is made up of a head, body, arms and legs, eyes, etc., but if we start removing body parts would he cease to be a person? Some people may contend that what makes a person is not the body parts but our feelings. But where does our feelings come from, if not from our senses and our mind, which are all just products of our surroundings. If we strip away our ability to see, feel, taste, hear and smell and our ability to think, are we then no longer human, no longer a self? "look upon the body as unreal, an image in the mirror, a reflection of the moon in water."
Another aspect of no self is the belief that what we consider "I" is not really "I". For example, if you were to think of yourself, how would you describe yourself- your age, your gender, your job, etc. However, our age is ever changing. Is your "I" today the same or different from your "I" 10 years ago? 20 years ago? Although we might still carry some characteristics of our younger selves, we have also certainly undergone significant changes as well. As an example, pretend that you committed a horrible crime when you were 20 years old, for which you were sentenced to life in prison without parole. You in fact committed the crime. Now suppose it is 20 years later and you have completely reformed and is living a completely pure and peaceful life. You in fact have reformed. Do you think the 40 year old you is the same person as the 20 year old you? If no, then does it mean people cannot change? If yes, then does it mean you should be released from prison? Or is it that in some ways we are the same person and in some ways we are not. Similarly, the Buddha used the example of a candle when describing the non-existence of a self. Suppose you light a candle and there is a flame. Now suppose that fire goes out, and you put it back- is the second flame the same as the first or is it different? The fuel is the same, it's ignition was the same, but it would be hard to say that it is exactly the same flame.
The third aspect of no self is the Buddhist belief that there is no permanent soul. If you are like me, your first reaction is confusion because how can we have reincarnation without the soul? What is being reincarnated then? Here the Buddha answered, when questioned by Kutadanta, that; "There is rebirth of character, but no transmigration of self. Your thoughts-form reappear, but there is no ego-entity transferred. The stanza uttered by a teacher is reborn in the scholar who repeats the words. Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existing entities." In this quote, I believe the Buddha is saying the products of our actions (causes) and the resulting effects (karma) transmigrate, but that there is no soul attached to those actions and karma. But that in turn begs the question; if who reincarnates is not our "selves" is it really fair that they should reap the effects of our actions? To this the Buddha answered; "You yourself will reap what you sow, not others. Think of a man who is uneducated and destitute. As a boy he was a sloth and indolent, and when he grew up he had not endeavored to learn a craft to earn a living. Would you say his misery is not the product of his own action, because the adult is not longer the same person as the boy. I say no to you: Not if you hide yourself away in the clefts of the mountains, will you find a place where you can escape the fruit of evil actions." This explanation is an elaboration of the previous example given for no "I". It contends that though a person might share some similar qualities as their former selves, you would not say they are one in the same. Despite that, when one's actions and karma reincarnates, the new being is both the same and not the same as the one that died.
Therefore, what we have always believed to be "self" was only the illusion of self, and it was the urge to hold on to this illusion which was the main cause of craving and rebirth. The Buddha reasoned that if a self did exist then it would be the root of suffering, and that if it was eternal then there would be no escape from suffering. So rather than a permanent soul, what we perceive to be our "self" is merely a composite of form, feeling, perception, conception, and consciousness (five skandhas or five aggregates). Accordingly, once a person can accept this, then he stops clinging to his self, desire fades, and he is liberated from the cycle of suffering.
"There is a path to walk on, there is walking being done, but there is no traveler. There are deeds being done, but there is no doer. There is blowing of the air, but there is no wind that does the blowing"
~the Buddha