No-Self and Dependent
Origination
Phil 308i
The Story of Nagasena and King
Milinda
- Generally dated around the second century C.E.
- Nagasena’s Position (p.222)
- The name “Nagasena” does not refer to a Self
(atman); it is just a temporary, convenient
designation for the aggregates.
- Milinda’s response (p.222-223)
- If it is true that there is no atman, then who is it
that I am talking to? I am obviously talking to you,
so your position must be false.
The Doctrine of No-Self
 Nagasena’s response (p. 223-225)
 You came in a chariot today, but you are unable
to identify it. You must be lying.
 The denial of atman, or unchanging essences, is
not nihilism - something exists.
Buddhaghosa’s Comment on NoSelf
 No-self (anatman)
 The doctrine of no-self is neither annihiliationism
nor eternalism. These are the “two heresies.”
(p.225-6)
 Annihilationism - nothing exists. This is to “outrun the
truth.” (p.225)
 Eternalism - everything exists eternally. This is to “fall
short of the truth.” (p.225)
Sensation and the Self
 The text seeks to refute three views about
the self: (p.226-228)
 1. Sensation is the self.
 2. The Self is something without sensation.
 3. The Self is something that has sensation.
Sensation and the Self
Refutations:
1. Sensation is the Self.

This position is impossible, as sensations are
transitory.
2. The Self is not sensation.

This position is also impossible, as there is no
cognition of a self without sensation. There is no
thought, “I am.”
3. The Self is something that has sensation.
- If all sensations were to stop, there would be nothing
else left. This would leave you with position 2.
Sensation and the Self
Refutations:
1. Sensation is the Self.

This position is impossible, as sensations are transitory.
2. The Self is not sensation.

3.
This position is also impossible, as there is no cognition of a self
without sensation. There is no thought, “I am.”
The Self is something that has sensation.
- If all sensations were to stop, there would be nothing else left.
This would leave you with position 2.
Problems (Nagasena and King
Milinda, cont.)
 Milinda: If there is no self, what is it that is
reborn? (p.228)
 Nasena: the previous “self” causes the next
“self” to be born, as a candle may be used to
light another candle. (p. 228)
Problems (Nagasena and King
Milinda, cont.)
 Milinda: If there is no self, how is karma
accumulated? (p.228)
 Nagasena: The evil deeds of the previous
self cause karma to be formed in the next
self. (p.229-230)
 There is some continuity between things: fire is
derived from a previous fire.
Dependent Origination
 The Dependent Origination as the Middle
Way (p.233)
 Dependent Origination is not a belief in being
(things exist eternally, in themselves) or
nonbeing (nothing exists at all).
 All things depend on other things for their
temporary existence, so they do not exist in
themselves. When the causes that support a
thing are withdrawn, the thing ceases to exist.
Dependent Origination, Cont.
 Twelve part cycle of Dependent Origination (233)
 Things actually do come into existence; to say that
something is dependent is not to say that it does
not exist.
 The fundamental cause of dependent origination
and the continued cycle of existence is bad karma
created by ignorance and desire. Desire leads to
attachment, the accumulation of karma, and
rebirth.