Also, although this sutra statement is phrased as an affirmation, it wouldn’t serve to indicate that the aggregates constitute the self. And why? As,
When saying it’s the aggregates that are the self,
It’s their collection, not the aggregates themselves.
For example, when saying that the trees make up the forest, it is the collection of trees that are a forest. It is not the trees themselves, since it would then follow that the forest is present in each individual tree. Likewise, it is the collection of the aggregates that make up the self.
And since a collection isn’t actually anything whatsoever:
But this does not exist, and so it cannot be –
Can’t be protector, cannot tame, nor serve as judge. (6.134)
The Illustrious One spoke of a protector and a judge in the statement:
Oneself is one’s own protector.
Oneself is one’s own enemy.
Oneself is one’s own judge
Of one’s good and bad deeds.1
And of a tamer in the statement:
The wise attain the higher realms
By properly taming their self.2
A collection however, not being something substantially existent, cannot logically be a protector, a tamer, or a judge, and the collection is therefore not the self.
Title
Chapter 1: Pramuditā
