|
Maybe the answer is there is no self. In the book "Why Buddhism is True", the author tries to layout the Buddhist idea of "not-self". It's tough to grasp and apparently takes years of meditation and thought to truly understand, but it can be summed up by explaining what the self isn't. > He conducts this search systematically; he goes through what are known as the five “aggregates” that, according to Buddhist philosophy, constitute a human being and that human’s experience. Describing these aggregates precisely would take a chapter in itself, but for present purposes we can label them roughly as the (1) physical body (called “form” in this discourse), including such sense organs as eyes and ears; (2) basic feelings; (3) perceptions (of, say, identifiable sights or sounds); (4) “mental formations” (a big category that includes complex emotions, thoughts, inclinations, habits, decisions); and (5) “consciousness,” or awareness—notably, awareness of the contents of the other four aggregates. The Buddha runs down this list and asks which, if any, of these five aggregates seem to qualify as self. In other words, which of the aggregates evince the qualities you’d expect self to possess? He then goes to poke holes in all the aggregates, primarily through arguing that we don't control any of these (including emotions), so without control, can you really call it self? Example of dispelling the first aggregate: > For starters, he links the idea of self to the idea of control. Listen to what he says about the aggregate of “form,” the physical body: “If form were self, then form would not lead to affliction, and it should obtain regarding form: ‘May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.’ ” But, he notes, our bodies do lead to affliction, and we can’t magically change that by saying “May my form be thus.” So form—the stuff the human body is made of— isn’t really under our control. Therefore, says the Buddha, it must be the case that “form is not-self.” We are not our bodies I don't know, it still leaves the hard question of consciousness unanswered. Why does it feel like we're conscious. But perhaps we have the wrong hierarchy. Maybe consciousness is base layer and physical reality is downstream, rather than the reverse. |
Not a Buddhist, but I have thought this as the real definition of consciousness - though I think it also includes being aware of the contents of the fifth "aggregate".
But I would also say that "self" is a unity of those things. In trying to separate it into parts, the thing (self) dies. (At least, at first glance that's my position - I'd have to think about it some more to be sure.)
As you say, that doesn't say anything about the hard problem of consciousness. In fairness, though, I don't think Buddhism is trying to solve that problem.