Buddha's Discourse on the Not-self
It
is Buddha’s teaching that the 5 aggregates of “bodily form, perception, feeling,
mental formation and consciousness” which exhaustively make up all that there
is about a person. This is convincing enough, as there seems no 6th
aggregate mutually exclusive with any of the 5 aggregates which is readily
conceivable. Even “sub-consciousness and dream”, though seemingly contributing
to another category, could be logically grouped somewhere within the area of mental
formation.
More
importantly, the qualifications of “control” and “permanence” are alluded to as
the essential conditions of being a self. As none of the 5 aggregates exerts total
control over a person’s behaviour – including his biological transformation,
growth and decline – and each element of the aggregates changes over time, indeed
all the time, the existence of a self is in question. But this begs another
immediate question:
Why
can’t a self be non-controlling and impermanent?
As
a butterfly transforms through its 4-stage life cycle – egg, caterpillar larva,
pupa and imago – at no point does it do so voluntarily (does it really not?);
and it usually lives no more than a year. Yet, it is identifiably the same
insect since birth. Is it fair to deny the butterfly of its self because of its
lack of voluntary control over its bodily transformation and the impermanence
of its life?
Besides,
it is hard to reconcile Buddha’s discourse on the not-self with 2 other of his
propositions elsewhere in his teachings.
Firstly,
in the discourse on the not-self, Buddha advises his disciples to regard each
of the 5 aggregates with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: “This is
not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.” This is implying that the self
lies elsewhere, which, however, is immediately contradictory to the idea that
the 5 aggregates exhaustively make up all that there is about a person. While
it is comprehensible to interpret his advice as simply not to claim ownership of
any state or output of the 5 aggregates, it is difficult to conjecture where
else can the self be.
Secondly,
the idea of the not-self is also contradictory to the fundamental principle of
cause and effect, which is apparently inherent in the concept of karma in
Buddhism. If karma refers to actions driven by intention, deeds done
deliberately through body, speech and mind, which leads to further
consequences, is it not in Buddha’s teaching that a person is entirely
responsible for his own karma? But how can he be responsible if there is no
self in the person?
The
concept of the not-self is indeed very difficult to fathom.
Perhaps
the true proposition is about “the insignificance of self” instead of the “not-self”,
particularly in the bigger scheme of the timeless universe. Given the
impermanence and fickleness of life, and the fact that there are many
circumstantial factors other than a person’s own deeds which determine the
consequences, there is indeed no lasting reason to be too passionate about any
form, feeling, perception, mental formation or any state of consciousness about
anything – as being elusively owned by the self.
What’s
the relevance of Buddha’s teaching to our occupation, business or even life in
general?
1. Beware
of delusions. Take time to learn the facts – if there are facts to be found.
2. Though
we need confidence, do not be too sure of any views. Be open-minded for
continuous learning and improvement.
3. Everything
passes, though we have to take responsibility of our own behaviour.
Comments