It is the Buddha’s teaching that the 5 aggregates of “bodily form, perception, feeling, mental formation, and consciousness” exhaustively make up everything about a person. This is convincing enough, since no sixth aggregate appears to be mutually exclusive with any of the five aggregates that is readily conceivable. Even “subconscious and dream”, although apparently contributing to another category, could logically be 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. Since none of the 5 aggregates exerts total control over a person’s behavior, including their biological transformation, growth and decline, and each element of the aggregates changes over time, in fact all the time, the existence of a self is at stake. doubt. But this raises 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?); and usually does not live more than a year. However, the same insect is identifiable from birth. Is it fair to deny the butterfly itself due to its lack of voluntary control over its bodily transformation and the impermanence of its life?
Furthermore, it is difficult to reconcile the Buddha’s discourse on not-self with 2 other propositions of his in other parts of his teachings.
First of all, in the discourse on not-self, Buddha advises his disciples to consider each of the 5 aggregates with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: “This is not mine, this is not me, This is not me.” This implies that the self is elsewhere, which, however, is immediately contradictory to the idea that the 5 aggregates exhaustively constitute everything about a person. While it’s understandable to interpret his advice as simply not claiming ownership of any state or product of the 5 aggregates, it’s hard to conjecture where else the self may be.
Second, the idea of 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, acts done deliberately through body, speech, and mind, leading to further consequences, isn’t it in the Buddha’s teaching that a person is entirely responsible for his or her own behavior? karma? But how can he be responsible if there is no self in the person?
The concept of not-self is indeed very difficult to understand.
Perhaps the true proposition is about “the insignificance of self” rather than “not-self”, particularly in the larger scheme of the timeless universe. Given the impermanence and fickleness of life, and the fact that there are many circumstantial factors, in addition to a person’s own actions, that determine the consequences, there is no lasting reason to become overly passionate about any form, feeling, perception, mental formation or any other. state of awareness about anything – as being elusively possessed by the self.
What is the relevance of the Buddha’s teachings to our occupation, business, or even life in general?
1. Beware of delusions. Take the time to learn the facts, if there are any facts to find.
2. Although we need trust, don’t be too sure of any point of view. Have an open mind for learning and continuous improvement.
3. Everything happens, although we have to take responsibility for our own behavior.
