No Inner Core: An Introduction to the Doctrine of Anatta - BuddhaNet

Homeric, Orphic, Pythagorean, and Platonic versions;
Hindu, Zoroastrian, Chinese, Muslim, Japanese, and
Christian. But, as the writers state, “Buddhism, in its
classic form, rejected the Hindu concept of atman as
the essential, immortal self….” 23
As we can see, Buddhism is the only major religion
that denies the existence of a metaphysical entity
which is usually called a self or soul.
Buddhism is divided into two major schools,
Theravàda and Mahàyàna, which have, in some cases,
major differences. But both schools adhere to the
anattà doctrine. H. von Glasenapp writes: “The negation
of an imperishable âtman is the common characteristic
of all dogmatic systems of the Lesser as well
as the Great Vehicle [meaning here Theravàda and
Mahàyàna, respectively], and, there is, therefore, no
reason to assume that Buddhist tradition which is in
complete agreement on this point has deviated from
the Buddha’s original teaching.” 24
Although the anattà doctrine is so important, so
distinctive, and supposedly so universally accepted by
Buddhists, it is still the most misunderstood, the most
misinterpreted, and the most distorted of all the teachings
of the Buddha. Some scholars who have written
on Buddhism had a great respect for the Buddha, liked
His teachings, revered Him and honored Him, but
they could not imagine that such a profound thinker
had actually denied the existence of a soul.
Consequently, they have tried to find apparent loopholes
in the teachings through which they have tried to
insert the affirmation of attà by the Buddha. For exam-
16