在佛教中，无我（巴利语anattā)或者安纳特门（梵语anātman)指的是“无我”的概念。一位学者把它描述成“意思是没有自我，区分自我和众人及其它事物的个人特性的缺失。”巴利语中的苏塔（sutta）和与之相关的阿伽马（āgama，请整体参考以下讲的“nikaya，尼卡亚”）认为，人是由不断变化的物质的和精神的要素（即skandha，司康达，五行的“行”）组成的，并非是一个永恒的不变的自身（通常表示“自我”）。“无我”的教义并不是一个超自然的论断，它是从痛苦中获得解脱的一种方式。实际上，佛教既不赞成“我有自我”的超自然的论断，也不赞成“我没有自我”的使人甘愿受苦的观点。

在尼卡亚中，佛不断强调组成所有生命的五行(司康达)是“无我”，而附着在五行上的永恒的自我或者说是“灵魂”却使我们苦恼。

在一些大乘佛教的佛经和秘典中，“空”的佛教教义是用积极的语言来表述的，它们将最终的本体形容为“真正的自我”（atman，阿特门）。在这些教义中，“空”的概念用来表达每个人与生俱来的通过进行佛教活动进入佛的状态并最终成佛的潜力。这个教义从救世神学的角度，而不是理论的角度，描绘了这种“永恒”（不死，不朽）的可能性和有关这些方面的一些内容。

无我，与度可卡（dukkha，受苦/不安）和安尼卡（anicca，无常）一起组成了达摩三大戒律。按照佛教的说法，这三大戒律可以解释所有世间万象的特性。

尼卡亚中的“无我”（“无我”）

佛教术语“无我”（巴利语），或者“安纳特门”（梵语）在佛教经典中既是名词也是肯定形容词，用于表示不是或者没有自我的一种现象，形容任何复合的，同体的，有知觉的和暂时的事物，从宏观世界到微观世界，从组成身体和广袤宇宙的物质的东西到任何暂时的精神上的东西。无我在佛经中通常与度可卡（不完美）和安尼卡（无常）联系在一起，它们三个术语常常被一起用于解释一切复杂的现象。“所有的事物都由安尼卡，度可卡和无我组成。”

乔达摩(Gautama)被人们问到无我的意思时，有段手稿是这么记载的：（摘自《萨姆塔尼卡亚(Samyutta Nikaya)》）有一次，在萨瓦提，令人尊敬的长者拉哈问佛祖：“无我，无我，我听见人们很尊敬地在说这个词语。它有什么真意呢？”“是这样的，拉哈，形式不是自我（无我），感情不是自我（无我），感知不是自我（无我），集合不是自我（无我），意识也不是自我（无我）。所以，无我是生命的终结，在无我里，婆罗门的人生已经完成了，必须做的事情也都已经做完了。”

《尼卡亚》中说：未受教化的人们用以区别于他人的某些事物（五行）不是构成一个人的必要条件，这也就是迈向解脱的人们讨厌与之为伍并逐步从他们之中分离出来的原因。

“无论什么形式，感觉，感知，经历或者意识都包含（五行的元素），在他看来都是不能够永恒的，比如痛苦，疾病，灾难，一个疖子，一阵刺痛，一段苦恼，作为外来人，作为不一样的，或者空(苏纳图sunnato)，或者自我（无我图anattato）。所以他把自己的思想从中解脱出来，而将愿望寄托到了永恒的不朽的领域（即阿玛塔亚达图亚amataya dhatuya）。这就是静的境界，也是最为精彩的一部分！”

在《萨姆塔尼卡亚》（Samyutta Nikaya (SN)）中，人们问佛祖乔达摩“是否存在‘没有灵魂’（纳哈塔，natthatta）的情况”，即传统上被认为是等同虚无主义（乌彻达瓦达ucchedavada）的说法。佛祖说：“无论从前还是现在，我从来都不是一个虚无主义者（与纳依卡vinayika），从来都不教人们某个事物的消失，而是教导人们痛苦的根源和痛苦的结束。”在《苏塔》中，对于自我的彻底拒绝的态度，你可以通过以下文章了解更多。

根据皮特 哈维的观点，无我并非一个哲学上的概念。

人们用“非我”来作为事物消失的原因，而不是用它来证明没有自我。完全没有必要对“自我”作出哲学上的否认，在知识之光的照耀下，当我们看到这个概念其实哪里都用不到，或者就像苏塔中说的一样，任何东西的自我都是“空”的的时候，这种思想就会立刻凋谢，消失。但这种哲学上的否认也仅仅是一种观点，一种理论，同样有人接受也有人反对。这并不会让人真正去把所有的东西都区分为有意识的和无意识的，自我和我。

《尼卡亚》提及到一种叫做“发光思想”的境界，这是思想的一种基本境界，在这种境界中或许可以理解重生的轮回里事物的“进化”的概念。

佛教批评孕育的理论，不论是认为所有事物都由单一灵魂构成，或者是由同一固有的物质构成的说法，在他们看来都是不对的。实际上，根据《康达萨姆塔47》的佛教教义，关于自身的所有思考都是必要的，无论思考者是否注意，无论是关于五行的思考，还是关于其中一个要素的思考。

佛祖在世的时候，一些哲学家和思想家提出了一个“根”的概念，即认为所有的事物都是由“根”组成的，而且“根”是固有的的一种抽象概念。当人们问佛祖对这个的理解时，他没有跟随这种思想，反而从根源上对它进行了反驳，他说，这种抽象概念的想法本身就是基于经历的。而修行佛教的人要寻找一个不一样的“根”——正在当前经历的度可卡的“根”。根据一位佛教学者的观点，类似的这种理论通常大多是由把某种特别的冥想经历标榜成为其最终目标的思想家提出来的，他们会用一种狡猾的方式将自己的理论区别于他人。

In Buddhism, anattā (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the notion of "not-self". One scholar describes it as "meaning non-selfhood, the absence of limiting self-identity in people and things."^[1] In the Pali suttas and the related āgamas (referred to collectively below as the nikayas), the agglomeration of constantly changing physical and mental constituents ("skandhas") comprising a human being is thoroughly analyzed and stated not to comprise an eternal, unchanging self (often denoted "Self"). The anatta teaching it is not meant as a metaphysical assertion, but as an approach for gaining release from suffering. In fact, the Buddha rejected both of the metaphysical assertions "I have a Self" and "I have no Self" as views that bind one to suffering.^[2]

In the nikayas, the Buddha repeatedly emphasizes not only that the five skandhas of living being are "not-self", but that clinging to them as if they were an immutable self or soul (ātman) gives rise to unhappiness.

Some Mahayana Buddhist sutras and tantras present Buddhist teachings on emptiness using positive language by positing the ultimate reality of the "true self" (atman). In these teachings the word is used to refer to each being's inborn potential to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices, and future status as a Buddha.^[3] This teaching, which is soteriological rather than theoretical, portrays this potential or aspect as undying.

Anatta, along with dukkha (suffering/unease) and anicca (impermanence), is one of the three dharma seals, which, according to Buddhism, characterise all conditioned phenomena.

Anatta in the Nikayas

The Buddhist term anatta (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit) is used in the suttas both as a noun and as a predicative adjective to denote that phenomena are not, or are without, a Self, to describe any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal and temporal things, from the macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter pertaining to the physical body or the cosmos at large, as well as any and all mental machinations, which are impermanent. Anatta in sutra is often used in conjunction with the terms dukkha (imperfection) and anicca (impermanence), and all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all compounded phenomena. “All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha and anatta.”

The one scriptural passage where Gautama is asked by a layperson what the meaning of anatta is as follows: [Samyutta Nikaya] At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?” “Just this, Radha, form is not the self (anatta), sensations are not the self (anatta), perceptions are not the self (anatta), assemblages are not the self (anatta), consciousness is not the self (anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done.”^[4]

The nikayas state that certain things (the five aggregates), with which the unlearned man identifies himself, do not constitute a personal essence and that is why one on the path to liberation should grow disgusted with them, become detached from them and be liberated.

 “Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind away from these and gathers his mind/will within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!” ^[5]

In Samyutta Nikaya (SN) 4.400, Gautama Buddha was asked if there “was no soul (natthatta)”^[6], which it is conventionally considered to be equivalent to Nihilism (ucchedavada). The Buddha himself has said: “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering, and its ending.” ^[7] For more on the suttas' attitude toward outright denial of Self, see below.

Anatta is not meant as a philosophical position. According to Peter Harvey,

One uses 'not-Self', then, as a reason to let go of things, not to 'prove' that there is no Self. There is no need to give some philosophical denial of 'Self'; the idea simply withers away, or evaporates in the light of knowledge, when it is seen that the concept does not apply to anything at all, or, as the Suttas put it, when it is seen that everything is 'empty' of Self. A philosophical denial is just a view, a theory, which may be agreed with or not. It does not get one to actually examine all the things that one really does identify with, consciously or unconsciously, as Self or I.^[8]

The nikayas refer to a level of mind called "luminous mind" which may be seen as a basic mode of mind in terms of which the "evolution" of beings through the round of rebirths may be understood.^[9]

The Buddha criticized conceiving theories even of a unitary soul or identity immanent in all things as unskillful.^[10] In fact, according to the Buddha's statement in Khandha Samyutta 47, all thoughts about self are necessarily, whether the thinker is aware of it or not, thoughts about the five aggregates or one of them.^[11]

At the time of the Buddha some philosophers and meditators posited a "root": an abstract principle out of which all things emanated and which was immanent in all things. When asked about this, instead of following this pattern of thinking, the Buddha attacks it at its very root: the notion of a principle in the abstract, superimposed on experience. In contrast, a person in training should look for a different kind of "root" — the root of dukkha experienced in the present. According to one Buddhist scholar, theories of this sort have most often originated among meditators who label a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, and identify with it in a subtle way.^[12]