The anatta (Sanskrit: anatman) doctrine lies at the center of Buddhist thought and practice. The Pali and Sanskrit words translate literally as 'no self'; but the doctrine applies not only to persons but to non-persons as well. On the 'no self' theory, nothing possesses selfhood or self-nature or 'own-being,' perhaps not even nibbana 'itself.' If a substance is anything metaphysically capable of independent existence, then perhaps we can interpret the anatta doctrine as a denial of the existence of substances. The 'no self' theory would then imply that in ultimate reality there are no substances: what we ordinarily take to be such are wrongly so taken. A pervasive ignorance (avijja) infects our ordinary view of the world. It is not an ignorance about this or that matter of fact, but one about the ontological structure of the world and of ourselves in it. This structural ignorance could be described as 'original ignorance.' For it lies at the origin of our uneasy and unsatisfactory predicament in this life in roughly the way in which original sin lies at its origin on a Christian scheme of things.
This original ignorance is most conspicuous and most damaging in the case of oneself. Filled with the “boastful pride of life,” we take ourselves to be permanent and self-determining, when in fact we are the opposite. We view ourselves as substantial entities when everything about us is insubstantial. It hardly need be stressed that Buddha is not interested in establishing our fundamental insubstantiality or lack of self-nature as a merely theoretical thesis. For his perspective throughout is soteriological: we are in a dire state from which we need salvation. In a famous parable, he likens our condition to that of a man who has been shot with a poisoned arrow. For anyone in such a predicament, the one thing necessary is to extract the arrow: learned inquiries into the arrow’s trajectory, the chemical composition of the poison, the motives and social status of the archer and the like are nothing but a distraction from the one thing that needs to be done. The anatta doctrine is therefore not a merely theoretical claim, although of course it is a theoretical claim; it is a claim put forward as an essential ingredient in a soteriological project. To be saved we must realize the truth of anatta. Buddha’s teaching has therefore as little to do with Humean scruples about substantial selves as playing backgammon has with working out one’s salvation with diligence.
But what exactly is the link between the denial of self-nature and salvation from our unsatisfactory predicament? All of the great religions enjoin self-denial as a (partial) means to salvation, but only Buddhism takes the radical step of grounding the moral injunction to self- denial in a metaphysical denial that there are selves. How does the latter denial conduce to salvation? If I attain insight into my lack of self-nature, how is this supposed to alleviate my suffering (dukkha)? Well, in the Buddhist scheme of things we suffer because of our desire or craving (tanha) for the unattainable. What we want is permanent satisfaction, and we ignorantly think that ordinary objects of desire will provide it. Thus we pursue the likes of property and position, name and fame, pleasure and security. But all of these things are impermanent (anicca), and so our craving for permanent satisfaction is destined to remain unfulfilled. When we do not get what we want, we suffer from not getting it. When we do get what we want, we suffer from its inability to satisfy us, and from the attachment it breeds. Either way, we suffer. We stumble on in life foolishly hoping someday to find the satisfaction that we have never found, and indeed can never find. All is suffering because all is impermanent, and all is impermanent because all is lacking in self-nature. If we could attain insight into anattata, into the selflessness of all things, then we would have a grounded metaphysical understanding of impermanence, as opposed to a merely empirical acquaintance with it. We would clearly see its inescapability and its ubiquity. Armed with this understanding, we would be in a position to dispel the illusion of permanence, renounce our craving for it, and by renouncing it, sever at its root the weed of suffering. For suffering arises from our ignorant craving for permanent satisfaction. The cure for this ignorance is insight into anattata. Thus would the raging fires of lust, hate and delusion be quenched; we would attain 'cessation' and entry into nibbana.
That in a nutshell is the Buddha-Dhamma. It starts with the fact of all-pervasive suffering (First Noble Truth); ascribes its origin to craving (Second Noble Truth); proclaims the possibility of the utter extirpation and total renunciation of craving (Third Noble Truth); and concludes with a program (the Eight-fold Path) for the achievement of the extirpation of craving (Fourth Noble Truth). The Eight-fold Path consists of right views, right intentions, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. Paramount among right views is of course the teaching on anatta. Thus the anatta doctrine lies at the base of the entire soteriological structure. But why should we accept it?
That is for another post.