The English translation of the Not Self Sutta which I recite is:

Anatta-lakkhanna Sutta

The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Varanasi in the Game Refuge at Isipatana. There he addressed the group of five monks:

“Form, monks, is not-self. If form were self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease, and it would be possible (to say) with regard to form, ‘Let my form be thus. Let my form not be thus.

But precisely because form is not-self, form lends itself to dis-ease, and it is not possible (to say) with regard to form, ‘Let my form be thus. Let my form not be thus.

Feeling is not-self. If feeling were self, this feeling would not lend itself to dis-ease, and it would be possible (to say) with regard to feeling, ‘Let my feeling be thus. Let my feeling not be thus.

But precisely because feeling is not-self, feeling lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible (to say) with regard to feeling, ‘Let my feeling be thus. Let my feeling not be thus.’

Perception is not-self. If perception were self, this perception would not lend itself to dis-ease, and it would be possible (to say) with regard to perception, ‘Let my perception be thus. Let my perception not be thus.’

But precisely because perception is not-self, perception lends itself to disease. And it is not possible (to say) with regard to perception, ‘Let my perception be thus. Let my perception not be thus.’

Fabrications are not-self. If fabrications were self, these fabrications would not lend themselves to dis-ease, and it would be possible (to say) with regard to fabrication, ‘Let my fabrications be thus. Let my fabrications not be thus.’

But precisely because fabrications are not-self, fabrications lend themselves to dis-ease, and it is not possible (to say) with regard to fabrications, ‘Let my fabrications be thus. Let my fabrications not be thus.’

Consciousness is not-self. If consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease, and it would be possible (to say) with regard to consciousness, ‘Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.’

But precisely because consciousness is not-self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease, and it is not possible (to say) with regard to consciousness, ‘Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.’

How do you construe this, monks—Is form constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“How do you construe this, monks—Is feeling constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“How do you construe this, monks—Is perception constant or inconstant?” “Inconstant, lord.” “And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“How do you construe this, monks—Are fabrications constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”  

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

 “No, lord.”

“How do you construe this, monks—Is consciousness constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

 “No, lord.”

To be continued in next post.......