Self and No Self in Buddhism

Anatta is widely regarded as the unique teaching of Buddhism. There is something certainly refreshing about Anatta - coming to terms with the fact that ultimately we can not claim possession of anything for ever and that no one thing in itself including God, as a changeless essence exists.

Some Buddhist publications and meditators can take this view to an extreme - there are often references to "no I", "no self". Buddhists turn it into a cherished belief that others may not be privileged to. But to what extent did the Buddha teach anatta and how may it be useful? As someone who has not awakened to this truth, I think it is a useful exercise to contemplate how seriously we should take "anatta".
Professor Richard Gombrich the ex Boden Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford University, has argued that this teaching was presented to debunk the Upanishad view of an immortal soul. Many suttas such as ones referring to putting out the fires can be seen in the context of prevailing views and practices such as maintaining a sacred fire in a Brahamin's home (the ancient Greeks also had a sacred fire in the home, hearth fires were very important in the absence of matches). It is certainly probable that the Buddha taught anatta, especially to those of his disciples who believed in an immortal soul and demonstrated its fallacy in the context of change and absence of control over our bodies and minds
.
The Buddha also emphasised the self. In the Samyutta Nikaya, the Buddha praises Queen Mallika for declaring her love for herself more than any other. In the Dhammapada there are several references to self. The Buddha says that neither mother nor father nor anyone can do more good for one, than one's self. He also emphasizes self control as a means for happiness and declares the path to bring the self to an absolute fulfillment.