Anatta states there “is no soul.” You cannot negate something that doesn’t exist. Buddhists don’t believe in a soul. You’re literally creating your own religion, but it’s not Buddhism.
—————
In
Buddhism, the term
anattā (
Pali) or
anātman (
Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent self,
soul or essence in living beings.
[1][2] It is one of the seven beneficial perceptions in Buddhism,
[3] and along with
Dukkha(suffering) and
Anicca (impermanence), it is one of three
Right Understandingsabout the
three marks of existence.
[1][4]
The Buddhist concept of Anattā or Anātman is one of the fundamental differences between Buddhism and
Hinduism, with the latter asserting that
Atman (self, soul) exists.
[5][6]
...
Anattā is a composite Pali word consisting of an (not, without) and attā(soul).
[7] The term refers to the central Buddhist doctrine that "there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the soul."
[1] It is one of the three characteristics of all existence, together with
dukkha (suffering, unsatisfactoriness) and
anicca(impermanence).
[1][7]
Anattā is synonymous with Anātman (an + ātman) in Sanskrit Buddhist texts.
[1][8]In some Pali texts, ātman of Vedic texts is also referred to with the term Attan, with the sense of soul.
[7] An alternate use of Attan or Atta is "self, oneself, essence of a person", driven by the Vedic era Brahmanical belief that the soul is the permanent, unchangeable essence of a living being, or the true self.
[7][8]
In Buddhism-related English literature, Anattā is rendered as "not-Self", but this translation expresses an incomplete meaning, states Peter Harvey; a more complete rendering is "non-Self" because from its earliest days, Anattādoctrine denies that there is anything called a 'Self' in any person or anything else, and that a belief in 'Self' is a source of Dukkha (suffering, pain, unsatisfactoriness).
[9][10][note 1] It is also incorrect to translate Anattā simply as "ego-less", according to
Peter Harvey, because the Indian concept of ātmanand attā is different from the Freudian concept of ego.
[14][note 2]
