Chapter 14. Self & Non-Self (Atta & Anatta)
ATTA (self) & ANATTA (non-self)
The issue of atta (selfhood) and anatta (non-selfhood) in Buddhist teachings has led to many arguments among Buddhist academics and scholars. To comprehend this problem, we focus on the translation and interpretation of the pali cannon or doctrine which has been rendered differently by academics and scholars.
Some academics and scholars claim that the Dhamma is anatta or non-self which eventually leads to the conclusion that supports the idea that our existence is ‘emptiness’ or sunnata with no exception to the Nirvana which is the ultimate goal of Buddhism. In this case, the Dhamma is accounted as ‘everything.’ Simply speaking, in this case, it is believed that ‘everything’ is ‘nothing.’
However, some other academics and scholars take it differently that the Dhamma can mean either Samgata Dhamma (the conditioned existence) or Asamgata Dhamma (the unconditioned existence). As the term Dhamma can mean so many things in Buddhism, we cannot conclude that all of what Dhamma can mean is non-self. Thus only the Samgata Dhamma (the conditioned existence) is anatta (non-self) whereas Asamgata Dhamma (the unconditioned existence) is atta (self).
In addition, there is also a concern regarding selfhood and non-selfhood of Dhamma that if Dhamma were to mean everything as non-self; therefore, the Anatta Dhamma or the non-selfhood itself, as one of the Dhamma, is also non-self. And this will eventually lead to the breaking even of the doctrine which does not comply to each other logically.
With the tools in Dhammonomics, we prove the idea with sets of equation and diagram to help students understanding the issue better as follows:
 The equation showing relationship between Samgata Dhamma, Asamgata Dhamma, and Selfhood.
Samgata Dhamma = Anatta
A(Samgata Dhamma) = A(Anatta)
Asamgata Dhamma = Atta
 The equation testifying claim on non-selfhood of all Dhamma
Dhamma = Anatta
Anatta Dhamma = Anatta x Anatta
Anatta Dhamma = Atta2
Non-Selfhood = Selfhood2
Thus, this equation is invalid
By Pittaya Wong
1 September 2018