The Cardinal Suttas
The Characteristic of Not-Self
All beings should take pains to understand the characteristic of not-self, which provides matchless deliverance from self-view and self-perception, as taught by the supreme Buddha.
This teaching is given so that those who meditate on experienceable realities may arrive at perfect comprehension;
It is for the development of perfect understanding of these phenomena, and for the investigation of all defiled mind-moments.
The consequence of this practice is total deliverance, so, desirous of bringing this teaching forth with its great benefit, let us now recite this Sutta.
Thus have I heard.
At one time the Blessed One was dwelling at Benares in the deer park. There he addressed the group of five bhikkhus:
‘Form, bhikkhus, is not-self. If, bhikkhus, form were self, then form would not lead to affliction, and one might be able to say in regard to form, “Let my form be thus, let my form not be thus.” But since, bhikkhus, form is not-self, form therefore leads to affliction, and one is not able to say in regard to form, “Let my form be thus, let my form not be thus.”
‘Feeling is not-self. If, bhikkhus, feeling were self, feeling would not lead to affliction, and one might be able to say in regard to feeling, “Let my feeling be thus, let my feeling not be thus.” But since, bhikkhus, feeling is not-self, feeling therefore leads to affliction, and one is not able to say in regard to feeling, “Let my feeling be thus, let my feeling not be thus.”
‘Perception is not-self. If, bhikkhus, perception were self, perception would not lead to affliction, and one might be able to say in regard to perception, “Let my perception be thus, let my perception not be thus.” But since, bhikkhus, perception is not-self, perception therefore leads to affliction, and one is not able to say in regard to perception, “Let my perception be thus, let my perception not be thus.”
‘Mental formations are not-self. If, bhikkhus, mental formations were self, mental formations would not lead to affliction, and one might be able to say in regard to mental formations, “Let my mental formations be thus, let my mental formations not be thus.” But since, bhikkhus, mental formations are not-self, mental formations therefore lead to affliction, and one is not able to say in regard to mental formations, “Let my mental formations be thus, let my mental formations not be thus.”
‘Consciousness is not-self. If, bhikkhus, consciousness were self, consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one might be able to say in regard to consciousness, “Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness not be thus.” But since, bhikkhus, consciousness is not-self, consciousness therefore leads to affliction, and one is not able to say in regard to consciousness, “Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness not be thus.”
‘What do you think about this, bhikkhus? Is form permanent or impermanent?’
‘Impermanent, Venerable Sir.’
‘But is that which is impermanent painful or pleasurable?’
‘Painful, Venerable Sir.’
‘But is it fit to consider that which is impermanent, painful, of a nature to change, as “This is mine, I am this, this is my self”?’
‘It is not, Venerable Sir.’
‘What do you think about this, bhikkhus? Is feeling permanent or impermanent?’
‘Impermanent, Venerable Sir.’
‘But is that which is impermanent painful or pleasurable?’
‘Painful, Venerable Sir.’
‘But is it fit to consider that which is impermanent, painful, of a nature to change, as “This is mine, I am this, this is my self”?’
‘It is not, Venerable Sir.’
‘What do you think about this, bhikkhus? Is perception permanent or impermanent?’
‘Impermanent, Venerable Sir.’
‘But is that which is impermanent painful or pleasurable?’
‘Painful, Venerable Sir.’
‘But is it fit to consider that which is impermanent, painful, of a nature to change, as “This is mine, I am this, this is my self”?’
‘It is not, Venerable Sir.’
‘What do you think about this, bhikkhus? Are mental formations permanent or impermanent?’
‘Impermanent, Venerable Sir.’
‘But is that which is impermanent painful or pleasurable?’
‘Painful, Venerable Sir.’
‘But is it fit to consider that which is impermanent, painful, of a nature to change, as “This is mine, I am this, this is my self”?’
‘It is not, Venerable Sir.’
‘What do you think about this, bhikkhus? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?’
‘Impermanent, Venerable Sir.’
‘But is that which is impermanent painful or pleasurable?’
‘Painful, Venerable Sir.’
‘But is it fit to consider that which is impermanent, painful, of a nature to change, as “This is mine, I am this, this is my self”?’
‘It is not, Venerable Sir.’
‘Wherefore, bhikkhus, whatever form there is, past, future, present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, whether it is far or near, all form should, by means of right wisdom, be seen as it really is, thus: “This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.”
‘Whatever feeling there is, past, future, present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, whether it is far or near, all feeling should, by means of right wisdom, be seen as it really is, thus: “This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.”
‘Whatever perception there is, past, future, present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, whether it is far or near, all perception should, by means of right wisdom, be seen as it really is, thus: “This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.”
‘Whatever mental formations there are, past, future, present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, whether they are far or near, all mental formations should, by means of right wisdom, be seen as they really are, thus: “This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.”
‘Whatever consciousness there is, past, future, present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, whether far or near, all consciousness should, by means of right wisdom, be seen as it really is, thus: “This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.”
‘Seeing in this way, bhikkhus, the wise noble disciple becomes disenchanted with form, becomes disenchanted with feeling, becomes disenchanted with perception, becomes disenchanted with mental formations, becomes disenchanted with consciousness. Becoming disenchanted, their passions fade away; with the fading of passion the heart is liberated; with liberation there comes the knowledge: “It is liberated,” and they know: “Destroyed is birth, the Holy Life has been lived out, done is what had to be done, there is no more coming into any state of being.”’
Thus spoke the Blessed One. Delighted, the group of five bhikkhus rejoiced in what the Blessed One had said. Moreover, while this discourse was being delivered, the minds of the five bhikkhus were freed from the defilements, through clinging no more.
Thus ends the discourse on The Characteristic of Not-self.