<p>Buddha gave advice to his son Rahula regarding this in Sutta 62,
verse 8 and verse 3 here:-</p>

<p><a href="http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/wp/mn/mn.062.ntbb.wp.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/wp/mn/mn.062.ntbb.wp.htm</a></p>

<p>For matter :-</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Rahula, whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is solid,
  solidified, and clung-to, that is, head-hairs, body-hairs, nails,
  teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone-marrow, kidneys, heart, liver,
  diaphragm, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents
  of the stomach, feces, or whatever else internally, belonging to
  oneself, is solid, solidified, and clung-to: this is called the
  internal earth element. Now both the internal earth element and the
  external earth element are simply earth element. And that should be
  seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: “This is not mine,
  this I am not, this is not my self.” When one sees it thus as it
  actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the
  earth element and makes the mind dispassionate towards the earth
  element.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>For non matter :-</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Then the Blessed One looked back and addressed the venerable Rāhula
  thus:[641] "Rāhula, any kind of material form whatever, whether past,
  future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or
  superior, far or near, all material form should be seen as it actually
  is with proper wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is
  not my self."' "Only material form, Blessed One? Only material form,
  Sublime One?" "Material form, Rāhula, and feeling, perception,
  formations, and consciousness.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-14T11:43:34.520Z
2019-04-14T11:49:08.373Z
2019-04-14T11:49:08.373Z
Omar Boshra
<p>It's in the <a href="https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebsut045.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Questions of King Milinda</a>, in the section which contains the analogy (or parable) of the Chariot.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Then, what is this "Nagasena"? Are perhaps the hairs of the head
  "Nagasena?"</p>
  
  <p>"No, Great King!"</p>
  
  <p>"Or perhaps the nails, [etc.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The questions, the <em>Milinda Panha</em>, is in the <em>Khuddaka Nikaya</em>.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-14T05:03:02.693Z
2019-04-14T05:03:02.693Z
ChrisW
<p>You might want to read :</p>

<p>SN 12:15 • Kaccanagotta
<a href="https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN12_15.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN12_15.html</a>
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn12.15/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://suttacentral.net/sn12.15/en/bodhi</a></p>

<p>MN 72 • Aggi-vacchagotta Sutta
<a href="https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN72.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN72.html</a></p>

<p>MN 109 • Mahā Puṇṇama Sutta
<a href="https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN109.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN109.html</a></p>

<p>“He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He assumes fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.</p>

<p>“This, monk, is how self-identification view comes about.”</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-14T04:58:27.573Z
2019-04-14T04:58:27.573Z
Fabien Todescato
<p>Not-self (Anatta) is a teaching which is difficult even to understand by an advanced practitioner. Anatta Lakhana Sutta is the direct teaching of this doctrine. 
<a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-14T00:58:04.013Z
2019-04-14T00:58:04.013Z
SarathW
<p>I have heard in the past a kind of argument to show that there is no self along the lines of: are you your body? No, your cells regenerate all the time. Are you your emotions? No, they come and go. Are you ... ? The questioning goes on and on like that till there is nothing left. Is that argument actually found in the sutras? If yes, in which one? </p>

<theravada><mahayana><sutras><texts>
Reference for the teaching of not-self
# Reference for the teaching of not-self

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-04-13)

I have heard in the past a kind of argument to show that there is no self along the lines of: are you your body? No, your cells regenerate all the time. Are you your emotions? No, they come and go. Are you ... ? The questioning goes on and on like that till there is nothing left. Is that argument actually found in the sutras? If yes, in which one?

**Tags:** theravada, mahayana, sutras, texts


---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-04-14. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

Not-self (Anatta) is a teaching which is difficult even to understand by an advanced practitioner. Anatta Lakhana Sutta is the direct teaching of this doctrine.
<https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html>


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-04-14. Score: 2

Buddha gave advice to his son Rahula regarding this in Sutta 62,
verse 8 and verse 3 here:-

<http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/wp/mn/mn.062.ntbb.wp.htm>

For matter :-

> Rahula, whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is solid,
> solidified, and clung-to, that is, head-hairs, body-hairs, nails,
> teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone-marrow, kidneys, heart, liver,
> diaphragm, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents
> of the stomach, feces, or whatever else internally, belonging to
> oneself, is solid, solidified, and clung-to: this is called the
> internal earth element. Now both the internal earth element and the
> external earth element are simply earth element. And that should be
> seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: “This is not mine,
> this I am not, this is not my self.” When one sees it thus as it
> actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the
> earth element and makes the mind dispassionate towards the earth
> element.

For non matter :-

> Then the Blessed One looked back and addressed the venerable Rāhula
> thus:[641] "Rāhula, any kind of material form whatever, whether past,
> future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or
> superior, far or near, all material form should be seen as it actually
> is with proper wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is
> not my self."' "Only material form, Blessed One? Only material form,
> Sublime One?" "Material form, Rāhula, and feeling, perception,
> formations, and consciousness.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2019-04-14. Score: 1

It's in the [The Questions of King Milinda](https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebsut045.htm), in the section which contains the analogy (or parable) of the Chariot.

> Then, what is this "Nagasena"? Are perhaps the hairs of the head
> "Nagasena?"
>
> "No, Great King!"
>
> "Or perhaps the nails, [etc.]

The questions, the *Milinda Panha*, is in the *Khuddaka Nikaya*.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-04-14. Score: 1

You might want to read :

SN 12:15 • Kaccanagotta
<https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN12_15.html>
<https://suttacentral.net/sn12.15/en/bodhi>

MN 72 • Aggi-vacchagotta Sutta
<https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN72.html>

MN 109 • Mahā Puṇṇama Sutta
<https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN109.html>

“He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He assumes fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

“This, monk, is how self-identification view comes about.”


---

