4. CAREER AND NOSELF.VIETNAMESE TRANSLATE ENGLISH BY=VIETNAMESE BUDDHIST NUN=THE WOMEN OF THE SAKYA CLAN CHAN TANH. There are some people who think that the doctrine of " karma " and the doctrine of " no-self " in Buddhism have contradictory meanings. The reason they make this point, because the doctrine now Buddhist meaning explain the relationship between cause and effect. Those who do evil will surely receive bad consequences, those who do good will surely receive good results. But the doctrine of selflessness meant all chains have a permanent unchanging entity, which is the crossroads õ (Atman). If it is assumed that there is no permanent self, then who is the doer and who is the bearer of the consequences of the action. Therefore, the doctrine of karma and non-selfof Buddhism is contradictory. From a logical point of view, such an argument is a reasonable argument, but in terms of the Buddha's personality and thought, is it possible that the Buddha is a person who claims to be a fully enlightened, fully enlightened person? wisdom, seeing and knowing as it really is, don't you see this contradiction? Do you have to wait for posterity to discover this contradiction? If we consider his teaching to be consistent in meaning, how do we explain this problem? To explain this problem, the writer bases on two points to discuss the problem: 1. Linguistics, 2. Ideology. " No-self " is a word that is translated from Sanskrit as nir-atman , in Pali called anattan. Nir means no or no, cessation; from Atman means self, soul, life, nature. The concept of " Russian õ" we see appear very early in the sacred Vedas and in the Austrian sense message, this concept later evolved into from jiva in Jain [1] , purusa delegates Number opinion, pudgala in Toc Tu, one of the 18 sects of Buddhism. Thus, nir and atmancombining these two words into nothing, denying the existence of an entity, like the hairless muzzle of a turtle; The word "isn't" is a word that describes the reality of not owning, for example, whose pen is this? If you do not own that pen, the answer should be "this pen is not mine" . "Isn't" doesn't mean "haven't", it does but doesn't belong to me. This is the meaning of the two words "phi" and "no". Like nir-atman . According to the "Han Hoa Great Dictionary" defines the word nir-atman as being no-self, not-self, not-being-self. The word that Chinese and Vietnamese people often use is " no-self ".". But here, we need to pay attention, the Chinese words "wu" and "phi" have different meanings. The word "no" is explained by Van Bach Thoai as "one being", in the Vietnamese sense that it is "no", but the word "phi" is explained by Van Bach Thoai as "no vision", which means "not a living being". ". “There is not” and “is not”ø are two completely different meanings. The word "no" is the word describing the state of emptiness, so these two words, which words carry the meaning that is consistent with the meaning that the Buddha described about the dependent origination (pratìtya-samutpàda) of the self? Before determining which of these two words to use, let us try to understand the meaning of the Buddha's description of man in terms of the Five Aggregates (panca-skandha), i.e. the aggregate of form (rùpa-skandha), The aggregate of feeling (vedana-skandha), the aggregate of perception (samjna-skandha), the aggregate of formations (samskara-skandha) and the aggregate of consciousness (vijnana-skandha). To clarify this meaning, we refer to the "Small Saccaka Sutra " [2] in the "Middle School Sutra" the Buddha and the heretic Niganthaputta Saccaka discussed as follows: According to this sutra it is recorded that Niganthaputta Saccaka was an unabashed orator who was respected by many people. He came to the Buddha for the purpose of debating the topic of " no-self ", because he heard the Buddha teach his disciples: "Form, feeling, perception, action, and consciousness are impermanent and not-self". The dialogue is as follows: - Niganthaputta Saccaka used an example to question the Buddha. He asked: All herbs depend on the soil to grow, the soil is the birthplace of all plants. In the same way, good and bad deeds are born based on form, feeling, perception, and action (the five aggregates), if Gotama thinks that these five aggregates are impermanent, what gives rise to all these good and bad? - Before answering this question, the Buddha identified the main problem of Saccaka, he asked: So do you mean that: "Form, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness are my self"? - Saccaka replied: ''That's right.'' - The Buddha asked: King Pasenadi of Kosala has any authority over the country that the king is ruling? - Saccaka replied: Of course has the authority to decide on matters in the king's territory. - The Buddha asked: Then you say "Form, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness are my self", what right do you have over this form, feeling, perception, formations and consciousness? - Saccaka was silent and did not answer. - So, hey Saccaka! Are form, feeling, perception, mental formations, or consciousness permanent or impermanent? - Impermanent. - What is impermanent, is that suffering or happiness? - Suffering - What is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, is it reasonable to consider it as mine, as me, as my self? - No, venerable Gotama. Above is a dialogue between the Buddha and the heretic Niganthaputta Saccaka. Through the content of this dialogue, it gives us a very specific definition of self. The Buddha called what the Upanisad called "self" (atman) which is made up of matter, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness. In it, there is no concept that carries the meaning of subject, which is the permanent and unchanging self, because its existence is always in the passive state of the law of dependent origination, that is the meaning that the Buddha brought to the end. Argument: Form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness are not mine, are me, are my self. "Not to be" does not mean not to be, this physical presence of the five aggregates is the existence of dependent origination. Such an existence the Buddha called a false existence, an unreal existence, this unreal existence is called"falling off ". From this meaning, we can come to the conclusion, that the word that the Buddha used to describe the dependent origination of man is the word " non-self " rather than "no-self ". Since the Buddha only rejected the Upanishad's idea of ​​a permanent and unchanging self , he did not hold that there was no self . This is the point we need to pay attention to. Then the problem of those who think that the doctrines of " karmic retribution " and "non-self" in Buddhism inherently contradict, we have enough grounds to explain the thought of these two theories which are inherently consistent. , there is no contradiction, we just need to change the usage of the word "no-self " to " non-self " to avoid misunderstanding. Doctrine of karmain Buddhism is the explanation of the causal relationship, with special emphasis on the causal relationship of psychological activities. Therefore, actions directed by an ignorant mind are the cause for bad results, and actions directed by clear consciousness are the factors that lead to good results. Thus, the result of a good or bad action is not a muscular action, it is the participation of consciousness. Consciousness is the master of all actions. The change of a person's bad (unreasonable) consciousness into a person's good (reasonable) consciousness is a process of training the mind. The process of training the mind is the process of harmonizing between the internal and the external, or rather, the coordination between the "consciousness of the world" (the subject of perception) and the "the world of law" (the object of perception); The element of consciousness (also called the aggregate of consciousness) cannot exist independently of form, feeling, perception, and formation; the dharma element is the conceptual world, the image of the external world is form, sound, taste, and touch. Thus, the formation of the perceiver and the perceived object is a collection of conditions, because life is always a flow, not standing still, so a correct perception, consciousness must also depend on things change that perceives to match reality. Realizing such, the Buddha called: "True wisdom". On the other hand, the mind is always changing, this change is similar to meaning the formation of the perceiver and the perceived object is a collection of conditions, because life is always a flow, not standing still, so a correct perception, consciousness must also depend on things change. natural that perceives to match reality. Realizing such, the Buddha called: "True wisdom". On the other hand, the mind is always changing, this change is similar to meaning the formation of the perceiver and the perceived object is a collection of conditions, because life is always a flow, not standing still, so a correct perception, consciousness must also depend on things change. natural that perceives to match reality. Realizing such, the Buddha called: "True wisdom". On the other hand, the mind is always changing, this change is similar to meaning"falling off ". Karma and non-self are two different concepts, but united in meaning. So the question: Who is the actor? Who is the bearer? The correct answer is: “.... There is karma but no author. This kettle destroys another continuously...." [3] . This is the meaning of the relationship between cause and effect and not-self in Buddhism.END=NAM MO SHAKYAMUNI BUDDHA.( 3 TIMES ).WORLD VIETNAMESE BUDDHIST ORDER=BUDDHIST DHARMA WHEEL GOLDEN MONASTERY=VIETNAMESE BUDDHIST NUN=THE WOMEN OF THE SAKYA CLAN CHAN TANH.AUSTRALIA,SYDNEY.1/12/2021.