Abstract: The object of this research is the Buddhist doctrine of non-self; while the subject is the content of this doctrine and its evolution with the course of time. Special attention is given to demonstration of the fact that initially the Anatta doctrine did not imply the denial of existence of the subject (self) as such. The author examines such aspects of the topic as the doctrine of non-self in the early Buddhism (Pāli Canon) and the problem of interpretation of the phenomenon of self in modern Buddhism, including by such cultural and philosophical figures as Ngawang Lobsang Tenzin Gyatso (14th Dalai Lama). The novelty of the conducted research consists in carrying out the first in Russia comprehensive study of Buddhist doctrine of non-self and outlining a new perspective on the problem. The author’s special contribution is lies in translations of the passages from Sutta dedicated to Anatmavada, which allowed formulating the fundamentally new conclusions. The following conclusions were made: 1) throughout history, Anatmavada underwent a difficult path from solely soteriological teaching that did not imply denial of self or subject to the open denial of subject in Buddhism of later period (the author sees recent interpretation of Anatmavada as incorrect); 2) two concepts of Anatta in early Buddhism can be determined: more common Anatmavada-2 and more “marginal” Anatmavada-1, which tends to denial of Anatta; 3) Anatmavada has evolved over the course of history from Anatmavada-2 to more nominalistic interpretations observed in the Buddhism of later period in form of the denial of self as such; 4) early Buddhism is not interested in ontological discourse on the existence of self; 5) Skandha in early Buddhism should be viewed from soteriological perspective – as a subject for meditation on the emergence, existence and elimination of certain moments of experience.

Abstract: This article examines the metaphysical nature of Samkhya and the concept of subject within it; then the author refers to the polemics between Buddhists and Samkhyaks as it is described in the passage Atmapariksha from Shantarakshita's Tattvasamgraha (VIII century) with the commentary "Panjika” of Shri Kamalashila. The subject of this research is the concept of subject within the philosophical system of Samkhya as it is given in Samkhya Karika and section on the polemics with Samkhya of the chapter Atmapariksha from Shantarakshita's Tattvasamgraha with the commentary "Panjika” of Shri Kamalashila. The object of this research is the Samkhya Karika and Shantarakshita's Tattvasamgraha. The key research method is the classical historical-philosophical method suggesting the combination of several methodological approaches. Genetic approach, comprehended as a method of studying philosophical concepts and notions, is based on the analysis of their origin and development. It implies consideration of the objects in evolutionary perspective, in dynamics of their historical development, therefore requires the establishment of initial conditions, key stage, main trends and strategies of development. The main goal of such research lies in identification of connection between the objects in time, studying of transitions from the historically older forms of philosophical (or even pre-philosophical) reflection towards the historically more recent. The author’s special contribution consists in conducting the first even research in Russia and in Russian language of the chapter “Discussion with the representatives of Samkhya on Atman” of the passage Atmapariksha from Shantarakshita's Tattvasamgraha with the commentary "Panjika” of Shri Kamalashila based on the original translation from Sanskrit.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the philosophical polemics between Buddhism and Indian School Nyaya- Vaisheshika on the question of the existence and characteristics of an actor as it presented in the 8th book Vasubandhu's "Abhidharmakosa-Bhasya" (IV-V centuries) – “Pudgalavinishchaya”.It is one of the polemic compositions regarding the existence and characteristics of an actor, in which found their reflection the discussions of that topic between the “Orthodox” Buddhists on one hand, and Buddhists-“Heretics” (Pudgalavadin), Nyaya- Vaisheshikas, philosophers-grammarians, Sankhyaikas on the other hand. The article uses the comparative-historical method, comparative analysis, popular methodology of philosophical translation from Sanskrit into the Russian language. Vaisheshikas acknowledge the existence of the eternal irrevocable atman. The main argument of Vasubandhu is that if it did exist that the states of mind also will be eternal and irrevocable, which, apparently, does not correspond with the reality. On the contrary, the states of mind (citta) are momentary, because consist of the momentary dharma, generating from each other in cause-and-effect relation (within the flow of volatile dharma). The scientific novelty lies in conducting the first translation from Sanskrit into the Russian Language of a substantial chapter from “Pudgalavinishchaya" of Vasubandhu with the commentary of Yashomitra, dedicated to the question of the existence of the actor, as well as philosophical analysis of the provided fragment of the text.