Hello Lagrade,
I am sorry to see that you’re confused about this topic. While I don’t consider myself a Dhamma expert, I will try to help you with my 2 cents:
You wrote: “My issue with that idea is that how can there be perception of anything along with conscious ability to think and do bodily actions if there is no self in reality?”
Saññā (perception) is one of the mental aggregates and is a kamma vipaka, i.e. a result of past action (kamma). According to Tipitaka, the precise details of how a kammic energy can ripen into its corresponding vipaka is only discernible to a Sammasambuddha. What we can do is get the general idea. A sentient being can’t recognize anything without having perception. A human has “manussa saññā“, deva has “deva saññā”, dog has “dog saññā” and so on. We have all experienced uncountable perceptions in the beginless samsara. The first saññā can not be traced back according to Buddha. But our perceptions don’t give us the “absolute truth” as our sense organs provide us a fabricated version of reality. A good example is provided by Yash above. What we conveniently call a “person” is an assemblage of parts, specifically the 5 aggregates.
Now to the other point regarding the “conscious ability to think and do bodily actions”. Our awareness arises due to 2 processes: sensory input and the processing of sensory input. A sentient being is an everchanging entity that behaves according to the existence resulted by the law of Paticca Samuppada. This is true for even a single life as demonstrated by Dr. Lal above. There is no enduring entity that you can can attribute as your “self”.
But then you may ask why it is wrong to identify with the aggregates even if they are impermanent. You asked: “there is a sense of me so one could argue that there is a dynamic self.”
Buddha said you can’t say something is truly “yours” under the following conditions:
- It is not under your complete control
- It can’t be maintained to your satisfaction
- It leads to suffering in the long run
You are correct in pointing out that we have conscious abilities. A healthy human has a pretty sharp mind capable of performing complex tasks, BUT the question is how long will that last? As we get older, our bodies age and eventually our brains will start to decay. Our “conscious abilities” will continue to worsen as we enter old age. It will get even worse when the kammic energy sustaining the human existence is exhausted and an apaya existence is grasped after death. An animal’s conscious abilities are much more limited than that of a human, for example and of course its suffering is far worse. So if something is inconstant, subject to unexpected and unwanted changes, and ultimately leads to suffering, would it be appropriate to say this is ‘me’ or this is my ‘self’?
When you study Abhidhamma in detail, this will get even more clear. Our awareness is a result of several units of cognitions knows as “citta”. There is only one citta at a time. Identifying with it would be like saying “I arise and disappear” which wouldn’t make sense.
And as for Nibbana, Buddha said it exists but there are no words in this word that can be used to describe what it is. So the status of an arahant is the wrong point to start. This is why Buddha said it is incorrect to make the following statements about an arahant:
“They exist after death”
“They don’t exist after death”
“They neither exist nor don’t exist after death.”
“They both exist and don’t exist after death.”
But to get to the arahant level and the end of suffering, intentional efforts are needed. So yes, “individuality” is there because we are responsible for our own future. Buddha always encouraged his followers to train like a horse trained for battle!
