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: 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.

Abstract: The subject of this article is the philosophical polemics between Buddhism and Indian School of Nyaya-Vaisheshika on the question of existence and qualities of an actor as it presented in the chapter Atmapariksha (literally, "Study of the Atman") in Shantarakshita’s Tattvasamgraha). Shantarakshita is a Buddhist philosopher of the VIII century, one of the prominent Buddhist thinkers in India and Tibet, a representative of the school of Svatantrika-Madhyamaka. An outstanding oeuvre of Shantarakshita is "Tattvasamgraha" ("Compilation of Essential Problems", or "Compendium of Principles"). It is an extensive polemic work, containing 26 chapters that subject to criticism the identical number of the fundamental philosophical schools of India (Sankhya, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimansa, Lokayata, Yoga, Vedanta, and also Jainism and Buddhism of other schools). The author concludes that the key postulate of the Nyaya-Vaisheshika regarding the actor lies in the fact that for the mental phenomena (for example, desire, etc.), which are considered as qualities within its system, necessitates the presence of a certain substrate, namely Atman. Shantarakshita, in turn, criticizes the position of the Nyaya-Vaisheshika that the numerous perceptions are comprehended by "self" and, therefore, pertain to the same actor. This article is first to introduce translation from Sanskrit into the Russian language of a substantial passage from Shantarakshita’s Tattvasamgraha with commentaries of Kamalashila dedicated to the question of the existence of actor, as well as philosophical analysis of the aforementioned fragment of text.