Dear friends,
here is another attempt of mine to translate a Pali sutta. Previously I posted what is known as Buddha’s first discourse, so it makes sense to now post the second: SN 22.59 - “the characteristic of no self”. Such an important suttas is worth the effort. 
Any critiques, comments, or questions, are welcome.
With metta,
Sunyo
This is what I have learned. At one time the Master was staying in the Deer Park at Isipatana, near Varanasi. There he addressed the group of five mendicants: “Mendicants.”
“Your reverence,” those mendicants replied.
The Master then said this:
“Mendicants, substance has no self. If substance were one’s self, it would not lead to affliction, and you could get it to be as you want, thinking: ‘Let my substance not be like this; let my substance be like that.’ But because substance has no self, it leads to affliction, and you can’t get it to be as you want, thinking: ‘Let my substance not be like this; let my substance be like that.’
Sensation has no self. If sensation were one’s self, it would not lead to affliction, and you could get it to be as you want, thinking: ‘Let my sensation not be like this; let my sensation be like that.’ But because sensation has no self, it leads to affliction, and you can’t get it to be as you want, thinking: ‘Let my sensation not be like this; let my sensation be like that.’
Perception has no self. If perception were one’s self, it would not lead to affliction, and you could get it to be as you want, thinking: ‘Let my perception not be like this; let my perception be like that.’ But because perception has no self, it leads to affliction, and you can’t get it to be as you want, thinking: ‘Let my perception not be like this; let my perception be like that.’
Activity has no self. If activity were one’s self, it would not lead to affliction, and you could get it to be as you want, thinking: ‘Let my activity not be like this; let my activity be like that.’ But because activity has no self, it leads to affliction, and you can’t get it to be as you want, thinking: ‘Let my activity not be like this; let my activity be like that.’
Consciousness has no self. If consciousness were one’s self, it would not lead to affliction, and you could get it to be as you want, thinking: ‘Let my consciousness not be like this; let my consciousness be like that.’ But because consciousness has no self, it leads to affliction, and you can’t get it to be as you want, thinking: ‘Let my consciousness not be like this; let my consciousness be like that.’
Mendicants, what do you think? Is substance permanent or temporary?”
“Temporary, your reverence.”
“Now, what is temporary, is that pleasant or is that suffering?”
“Suffering, your reverence.”
“Now, what is temporary, suffering, of the nature to change, is it proper to perceive that as ‘it’s me, it’s mine, it’s my self’?”
“No, your reverence.”‘‘Is sensation permanent or temporary?”
“Temporary, your reverence.”
“Now, what is temporary, is that pleasant or is that suffering?”
“Suffering, your reverence.”
“Now, what is temporary, suffering, of the nature to change, is it proper to perceive that as ‘it’s me, it’s mine, it’s my self’?”
“No, your reverence.”‘‘Is perception permanent or temporary?”
“Temporary, your reverence.”
“Now, what is temporary, is that pleasant or is that suffering?”
“Suffering, your reverence.”
“Now, what is temporary, suffering, of the nature to change, is it proper to perceive that as ‘it’s me, it’s mine, it’s my self’?”
“No, your reverence.”‘‘Is activity permanent or temporary?”
“Temporary, your reverence.”
“Now, what is temporary, is that pleasant or is that suffering?”
“Suffering, your reverence.”
“Now, what is temporary, suffering, of the nature to change, is it proper to perceive that as ‘it’s me, it’s mine, it’s my self’?”
“No, your reverence.”‘‘Is consciousness permanent or temporary?”
“Temporary, your reverence.”
“Now, what is temporary, is that pleasant or is that suffering?”
“Suffering, your reverence.”
“Now, what is temporary, suffering, of the nature to change, is it proper to perceive that as ‘it’s me, it’s mine, it’s my self’?”
“No, your reverence.”
“Therefore, mendicants, whatever substance there may be—whether past, present or future, inside you or outside you, coarse or fine, inferior or superior, near or far—you should see it all as it really is with correct understanding as ‘it’s not me, it’s not mine, it’s no self of mine’.
Whatever sensation there may be—whether past, present or future, inside you or outside you, coarse or fine, inferior or superior, near or far—you should see it all as it really is with correct understanding as ‘it’s not me, it’s not mine, it’s no self of mine’.
Whatever perception there may be—whether past, present or future, inside you or outside you, coarse or fine, inferior or superior, near or far—you should see it all as it really is with correct understanding as ‘it’s not me, it’s not mine, it’s no self of mine’.
Whatever activity there may be—whether past, present or future, inside you or outside you, coarse or fine, inferior or superior, near or far—you should see it all as it really is with correct understanding as ‘it’s not me, it’s not mine, it’s no self of mine’.
Whatever consciousness there may be—whether past, present or future, inside you or outside you, coarse or fine, inferior or superior, near or far—you should see it all as it really is with correct understanding as ‘it’s not me, it’s not mine, it’s no self of mine’.
Mendicants, seeing like so, a well-taught noble disciple gets repelled by substance, repelled by sensation, repelled by perception, repelled by activity, and repelled by consciousness. Being repelled, he loses desire. Through desirelessness, he gets liberated. When he is liberated, he knows that he is. He will know that birth is ended, the spiritual life finished, the work done, and that there will be no next life.”
That is what the Master said. The group of five mendicants was pleased and enjoyed the Master’s words. And while this exposition was being spoken, by not taking things up, the minds of the five mendicants were liberated from their outflows.