[DextExexy]

The Self Is No-Self

Very basically, the Buddha taught that "you" are not an integral, autonomous entity. The individual self, or what we might call the ego, is more correctly thought of as a by-product of the skandhas.

the Buddha taught "not-self" rather than "no-self". Anatta means 'not-self'

on its most basic level, anatta means 'not-mine', i.e., it does not belong and cannot be possessed. thus 'not' is the correct translation

it is the same as when a mother tells their child: "Do not touch that thing. It is not yours!"

the mother teaches her child correct language. mother says: "Not yours!" rather than "no yours!"

on a further level, anatta applies to the conventional self, i.e., a 'self' that is not a real self. so, again, 'no-self' does not make sense

also, "self" is not a by-product of the [five] skhandhas. "self" is a misinterpretation of reality by one of the skhandas. "self" is a by-product of one skhandha rather than of five skhandhas

anyone with direct realisation would understand this. how can "self" be a by-product of the physical body, which is a skhandha?

kind regards