Buddha on the Self and Non Self

17 May, 21

Buddha's claim that the self does not exist might seem little shocking if one has no experience with meditative practices. Buddha is associating self with five properties, called the five aggregates.These are form, feelings, perception, mental formations and consciousness. He found two main characteristics in all five aggregates and these are impermanence and not being able to control them. If we would think of self as something we have control over and persist over time then according to Buddhist doctrine that self simply does not exist. Ever changing nature of these five properties that describe our body, our mind and our experience that we don't have real control over is Buddha's principal argument against this kind of self. There are many different interpretations of what Buddha meant with the teaching of non self, but it seems that he never really denied the existence of self but rather tried to make people understand where the self can't be found and that is in form, feelings, perception, mental formations and consciousness. Clinging to and identifying with impermanent mental and physical components of our beings only separates us more from our true nature which some Hindu interpreters of Buddhism describe as absolute, unconditioned and indescribable. I feel this very much aligns with my own interpretation of Buddha's teaching on non self. I definitely agree with his argument that this kind of self doesn't exist.

My first reason to support this view is coming from personal experience of non self through my meditation practice. Sitting down with myself in order to tap into the silence of my monkey mind has been one of the most challenging and at the same time most rewarding experiences I've had. Through my journey I've gained understanding about the impermanence of all things and how the attachment to these worldly experiences links with suffering and discontentment. For the first time in my life I became aware of the running thoughts, feelings and even consciousness itself. Connecting to the mental and physical experiences and their impermanent nature as they are in this very moment helped me stop identifying with them but rather accepting them as flow of life. Liberating as it is, it's a constant journey of returning and rediscovering what self is not. I might be far away from grasping my true nature, but for now I am content with knowing what I am not.

Another reason to support my view of Buddha's teaching of non self is coming from Vedanta, Hindu interpreters of Buddhism who believe that there is a higher self that is absolute, unconditioned and indescribable. This makes sense if we take five properties that Buddha says are associated with the self that does not exist. They are impermanent, unsatisfactory and we have no control over them. Therefore if we look for it, there is no self in any of them. If self does not exist in mental or physical form, it might be true we are not looking for it in the right place. Since Buddha has never denied the existence of self, but rather taught what self is not, I feel this interpretation could solve a confusion many people have. At least it solved it for me. Whether his teachings on Self and non Self make sense to you or not, I believe that the only way of finding out is to sit down and meditate on it.