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 seems to be mutually exclusive with any of the five aggregates that is easily conceivable. Even the “subconscious and dream”, while apparently contributing to another category, could logically be lumped together somewhere within the area of mind 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 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 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 time does it do so voluntarily (isn’t it really?); and usually does not live more than a year. However, the same insect is identifiable from its birth. Is it fair to deny the butterfly itself because of 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 non-self with 2 other of his propositions elsewhere in his teachings.
First of all, in the discourse on not-self, the 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 found elsewhere, which, however, is immediately contradictory to the idea that the 5 aggregates exhaustively make up 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 no-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 intention-driven actions, acts done deliberately through body, speech, and mind, leading to later consequences, isn’t it in the Buddha’s teaching that a person is entirely responsible for his own karma? But how can you be responsible if there is no self in the person?
The concept of the not-self is in fact very difficult to understand.
Perhaps the true proposition is about “insignificance of self” rather than “not-self,” particularly in the grander scheme of the timeless universe. Given the impermanence and fickleness of life, and the fact that there are many circumstantial factors besides a person’s own actions that determine the consequences, there is no lasting reason to be overly passionate about any form, feeling, perception, mental formation or any other. state of consciousness 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 be found.
2. Although we need confidence, don’t be too sure of any point of view. Have an open mind for learning and continuous improvement.
3. Everything passes, although we have to take responsibility for our own behavior.