What Does Buddha Mean by "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.