Is form … feeling … perception … mental formations … consciousness permanent?
Impermanent, O Lord.
Now that which is impermanent, is it satisfactory or unsatisfactory?
Unsatisfactory, O Lord.
Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: this is mine, this I am, this is myself?
Indeed, not that, O Lord.
(Anattā -Lakkhana Sutta, as translated by Mendis, n.d.)
What the Anattā-Lakkhana Sutta is essentially saying is human-beings can be broken down into five aggregates (khandha) – form (rūpa), feeling (vedanā), perception (saññā), mental formations (samkhāra), and consciousness (viññāna) without anything being left. And since the 5 khandha make no reference to an eternal soul, or self, Buddhism is said to teach the doctrine of not-self (anattā). In other words, there is no permanent unchanging soul or self that exists separate from these 5 khandha.
It is important to note that, having said there is no-self, Buddhism is not saying that as individuals, we do not have a unique personality or identity. It is just that the particular tendencies, traits, habits, and characteristics that make us who we are, are believed to come about as part of the fourth aggregate – the mental formations aggregate (samkhāra khandha). Unlike the theistic religions, and other Indian belief systems such as Brahmanism (present day Hinduism) and Jainism however, the Buddhist belief in anattā affirms that, as Prebish & Keown (2010, p.57) put it, the “concept of an eternal unchanging soul is redundant, and is not required to explain how human beings function”.
If we try to analyse our feelings, perceptions, actions, and consciousness, etc., we generally think of these mental formations as ‘me’ or ‘myself’. From a Buddhist perspective however, the ‘me’ does not actually inhabit any of these elements, and to cling to this belief is born out of ignorance. Ignorance here simply means being misguided, or not recognising the facts, or only having a partial appreciation of them. Having said this though, even if one ‘recognises’ that the self does not exist independently; that it is only a label, extinguishing the concept of self is extremely difficult. “This label called ‘self’ is the most stubborn of all concepts to break”. (Khyentse, 2008, p. 46).
The concept of self is the result of faulty assumptions driven by fear of death, desire for pleasure and longing for life without end. It is a failure to understand/accept that all phenomena – formed and formless things, events, mental activities, laws, and anything else you can think of – arises, abides, changes and ceases based on the paticca-samuppāda doctrine. Thus, if there is nothing that does not continuously change, how can the ‘self’ really be a self?
(Dhammananda, 2010, pp. 155-8; Guide to Buddhism A-Z, n.d: b; Kang, ca.2012c; Khyentse, 2008, pp. 45-6; Prebish & Keown, 2010, pp. 55-57; Thanissaro, n.d: b; Yin-shun, 1998, pp. 167 & 289-291; Yun, 2008, pp. 52-4 & 161)