西方人了解佛教的過程中，經常遭遇的第一個障礙，是有關 anatta 的教導，這個詞常被譯成無我(no-self)。這個教導成為障礙，有兩個理由。首先，沒有自我這個觀點與佛陀的其它教導並不吻合，比如業與輪回。假如沒有自我，是什麼承受業的後果，繼續輪回？第二，它與我們自己的猶太-基督教背景也難以吻合，後者把永恆的靈魂或者自我，當成一個基本前提。假如沒有自我，靈性生活的目的又是什麼？許多書籍試圖解答這個問題，但是，如果查看記載著現存最早的佛陀教導的巴利文獻，你在經中根本找不到與此相關的陳述。實際上只有一處，有人當面直接問佛陀，自我是否存在，而他卻拒絕回答了。後來有人問他為什麼，他說，認定有我、無我兩個觀點中的任何一個，均屬極端妄見，不可能走上佛法修持之路。因此，這樣的問題應該放在一邊。為了理解他對這個問題保持緘默意味著anatta的釋義是什麼，我們首先必須閱讀他的教導，有關怎樣提出問題、解答問題、以及怎樣理解他的答覆。

佛陀把一切問題分為四類：一類值得明確答覆(直接的是與否)；一類值得分析式答覆，即對該問題加以定義與限制；一類值得反問，即把球送回提問者的本身；一類值得放在一邊。後者，則包括那些不能終止苦與緊張的問題。一位老師接到問題時，首要責任是弄清這個問題屬於哪一類，之後以相應方式作答。比如你對一個該放在一邊的問題，便不以是與否作答。假如你是提問者，得到一個答覆後，便要決定對其推論該走多遠。佛陀說，誤解他的人有兩類：一類對不該作推論的陳述去作推論，還有一類該作推論卻不作。

這些便是理解佛陀教導的基本原則，不過如果看看多數作者對 anatta學說的解釋，我們發現這些基本原則給忽略了。有些作者試圖對無我的銓釋加以限定，說佛陀否定的是永恆自我或者獨立自我的存在，不過這樣做，是對一個佛陀表明該放在一邊的問題，給出分析式答覆。其他人則試圖從經文中，幾個似乎暗示自我不存在的陳述裡作推論，不過可以肯定，迫使這些句子，對一個該放在一邊的問題，給出答案，那麼他是在作不當推論。

因此，與其對自我是否存在，這個問題回答“不存在”——無論這個自我是指相關、獨立、是否永恆——佛陀認為這個問題從一開始就有誤導性。為什麼? 無論你怎樣劃定“我”與“他”的界線，自我這個概念，包含了某種自我認同與執取因素，因此就帶著苦與緊張。這個分析，適用於一個獨立的自我，也適用於一個與外界相通的自我，這樣的自我不承認“他”。假如一個人認同自然的一切，他便為每一株落木而苦。這個分析也適用於對整個“其它”宇宙[的認同]，在那裡的隔絕感與徒勞感極其有害，使人對快樂的追求(無論為己為他)成為不可能。出於這些原因，佛陀的忠告是，不要去注意“我存在嗎？ ” 、或者“我不存在嗎？”這類問題，因為無論你怎樣回答，都會導致苦與壓力。

為了避免有關“我”與“他”的問題內部隱含的苦，他提出另一種解析經驗的方式：有關苦、苦因、滅苦、滅苦之道的四聖諦。 他說，不要把這些事看成與我、與他有關，而應該把它們看成，存在現實本身、直接的經驗本身，接下來對它們各自施行相應的責任。 應當去理解壓力、消除其因、實現其止息、培養止息之道。 這些責任，構成了理解 anatta 學說的最佳背景。如果你培養了戒德、定力、明辨，達到一個寧靜的狀態，在這個狀態下，以四聖諦的原則看待經驗，在心中升起的問題就不是“有沒有自我，我是什麼？” 而是“我在受苦，是不是因為我執著於這個特別現象？它真的是我、我自己、我的嗎？如果它是苦，但實際上，卻不是我或者我的，又為什麼要執著呢？ ” 後面那組問題，就值得一個直接了當的答覆了，因為這時的答案能幫助你理解苦，放下導致苦的追求與執著，即放下殘餘的自我認同，直到最後，一切自我認同的痕跡消失，剩下的是無限的自由。

在這個意義上，anatta 的教導，並非是個無我(no-self)的學說，而是一個非我(not-self)的策略，藉著放下苦因、走向最高快樂，這樣來消解苦。在那時，我、無我、非我這些問題，就落到了一邊。有了這樣徹底自由的經驗，又何必關心是誰、是不是我在經歷它呢?

One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali Canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers.

The Buddha divided all questions into four classes: those that deserve a categorical (straight yes or no) answer; those that deserve an analytical answer, defining and qualifying the terms of the question; those that deserve a counter-question, putting the ball back in the questioner's court; and those that deserve to be put aside. The last class of question consists of those that don't lead to the end of suffering and stress. The first duty of a teacher, when asked a question, is to figure out which class the question belongs to, and then to respond in the appropriate way. You don't, for example, say yes or no to a question that should be put aside. If you are the person asking the question and you get an answer, you should then determine how far the answer should be interpreted. The Buddha said that there are two types of people who misrepresent him: those who draw inferences from statements that shouldn't have inferences drawn from them, and those who don't draw inferences from those that should.

These are the basic ground rules for interpreting the Buddha's teachings, but if we look at the way most writers treat the anatta doctrine, we find these ground rules ignored. Some writers try to qualify the no-self interpretation by saying that the Buddha denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self, but this is to give an analytical answer to a question that the Buddha showed should be put aside. Others try to draw inferences from the few statements in the discourse that seem to imply that there is no self, but it seems safe to assume that if one forces those statements to give an answer to a question that should be put aside, one is drawing inferences where they shouldn't be drawn.

So, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self — interconnected or separate, eternal or not — the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress. This holds as much for an interconnected self, which recognizes no "other," as it does for a separate self. If one identifies with all of nature, one is pained by every felled tree. It also holds for an entirely "other" universe, in which the sense of alienation and futility would become so debilitating as to make the quest for happiness — one's own or that of others — impossible. For these reasons, the Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress.

To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of "self" and "other," he offered an alternative way of dividing up experience: the four Noble Truths of stress, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. Rather than viewing these truths as pertaining to self or other, he said, one should recognize them simply for what they are, in and of themselves, as they are directly experienced, and then perform the duty appropriate to each. Stress should be comprehended, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the path to its cessation developed. These duties form the context in which the anatta doctrine is best understood. If you develop the path of virtue, concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-being and use that calm state to look at experience in terms of the Noble Truths, the questions that occur to the mind are not "Is there a self? What is my self?" but rather "Am I suffering stress because I'm holding onto this particular phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, or mine? If it's stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on?" These last questions merit straightforward answers, as they then help you to comprehend stress and to chip away at the attachment and clinging — the residual sense of self-identification — that cause it, until ultimately all traces of self-identification are gone and all that's left is limitless freedom.

In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?