(Previous writings on Buddhism are HERE)
In the "No-Self" series of writings, I am going to walk you through two core Buddhist ideas about human mind in plain English: first, the doctrine of "No-Self"(无我); second, Dependent Arising(缘起) whereby our mind responds to things causing either duhkha or a sense of nirvana. The former and the latter are not separate from, but coherent with each other. As you can see from the title, this essay is to discuss the doctrine of "No-Self".
The Notion of Self
Anticipating Buddhism, there were some other schools of philosophy in ancient India also thinking that everything is in constant flux, in a state of impermanence. "Self", however, dramatically violated this conception: though time melts away, we won't consider ourselves as someone else; we attribute the subject "I" to every piece of our experiences, which suggests that our selves seem to be both the never-changing observers and controllers in the experience world. Under the law(or premise) that everything is impermanent, how to account for this discrepancy? Those schools found no alternatives but to come to the conclusions that the notion of self is an exception, and that our selves are spiritual, metaphysical, and immune to the law of impermanence.
This ancient notion of self still rings true to modern psychology. Our selves are consistent through time. Shown the photos taken in an adult's childhood, he or she would say "well, that's me". We become aware of our selves in a very early age. Unbeknownst to a 18- to 24-month-old baby, someone puts a small sticker on the baby's nose and lets the baby sit in front of a mirror and the baby will reach his or her nose for the sticker not the "sticker" in the mirror. Our selves do act like the "CEO"s who are in charge of our experiences and thoughts. Was that not the case, how do we carry out long-term work in a planned manner?
Buddha's Critique
In the Four Noble Truths, Buddha taught that everything is impermanent. Here, everything includes the notion of self and the seemingly unchanged self is an illusion. Buddha's critique was quite straight forward and I summarize the doctrine of "No-self" into the following syllogism:
Men are composed of Five aggregates both physically and mentally.
There is nothing permanent such as a "self" in any aggregate.
Therefore, self does not exist.
Let us start with what "Five aggregates" are. To put it nice and simple, Five aggregates(五蕴, skandha/khandha) are the exhaustive constituents of a being. By carefully examining Five aggregates, Buddha answered two ultimate questions: first, "what is a being"; second, "what is going on". They are:
form(色, rūpa), bodily phenomena, which gives rise to feelings;
feelings(受, vedanā), sensation and raw feelings, which gives rise to recognition;
recognition(想, samjñā/saññā), perception, which gives rise to formations;
formations(行, samskāra/samkhāra), volitional activities, which gives rise to consciousness;
consciousness(识, vijñāna/viññāna), conscious awareness, which might affect one's body or feelings.
Apart from experience, there is nothing permanent: changes in each aggregate , be they huge or minute, happen every time. There is nothing under our control: bodies grow, decay, and extinguish; senses and perception are so automatic that hardly could we exert any control; the unconscious motivation underlies every volitional activities and conscious thoughts. Self in a common sense is consistent through time and a controller, a CEO, but nothing in Five aggregates could be attributed to such a "self".
Could self equal to experiences? No. Experiences are in constant flux as a function of time, whereas self remains the same.
Could self transcend from experiences? No. If so, how could we prove our existence in such an experience world? Descartes once put that cogito ergo sum(我思故我在), which means that the existence of one's self is in the very act of doubting. However, according to Five aggregates, doubting belongs to volitional activities and as mentioned above, nothing in any aggregate could be attributed to "self".
Could self be attributed to experiences? No. If that's the case, the changing of experiences causes the changing of self, which is not coherent, absurd.
Thus, self just does not exist. There is nothing(性空) apart from experience.
Interpretations and Some Take-away Lessons
Intuitively, No-self does not make sense. Were I a bank robber, could I argue that the self does not exist for a "not guilty"? Absolutely I couldn't. First, our legal system assumes that we have free will and are responsible for what we've done. Second, the interpretation of "No-self" is totally wrong.
There exists various interpretations of "No-self". Some focus on the ineffable experience of "No-self" during meditation practice, some emphasis the vital role played by "No-self" in the process of cessation of duhkha, and others claim that "No-self" means the unconscious motives underlying all the actions and thoughts. The latter two interpretations I want to highlight in this essay give us some take-away lessons.
People attach or cling to impermanent things, such as sensory pleasures, material goods, fame, love from the special one, but fail to see the impermanence. This failure eventually leads to eternal duhkha, or suffering. What if we bear the teachings of "No-self" in mind? There is not an "I" in this experience world; my feelings, senses, perception and violation do not belong to me and they are just what they are; I would not be so easily depressed or elated by external things; because of the non-existence of self, I can say I am everything: the boundary between other people and I is dissolved and I have no reason to harm anyone. That's a sense of mindfulness that might give you a novel sense of control of life and help you become a better person.
The third interpretation was first given by Buddhaghosa(觉音尊者) who noted "deeds without a doer, thoughts without a thinker". This notion is quite in line with modern psychology. Never think you are doing the "right" thing under the "good" intention, the truth often hurts.
