Psychological Self vs. No-Self
As a therapist and a meditation teacher, I live a surreal life. At the office I’m helping people to gain greater self-esteem, more positive self-regard, and encouraging them to see themselves as competent, empowered and strong. But when I teach meditation I strongly encourage people to see that the self is an illusion. On the outside it could seem as if I’m working against myself.
It’s the same for a lot of people who meditate. Most meditators accept that no-self is a core truth of reality. But many have also taken intro to psychology classes and have read a lot of self help books that promote healthy acceptance of the self. It is not unusual for people who regularly attend meditation retreats to also do a lot of self-development, such as adult education and travel. Clearly, in meditation circles, it can seem like we are pretty mixed-up about ourselves. It’s as if we have a love-hate relationship with the “self.”
How are we to make sense of this apparent paradox? The self is indeed an illusion, but why care for and cater to it?
The Psychological Self vs. No-Self
The self in Western psychology is viewed as that function of the mind that helps us to organize our experiences. It takes raw sense data, memories, and other cognitive functions and turns them into recognizable narratives. It is critical for everything that we do. Without a strong sense of self, we literally could not make sense of anything that happens to us.
What is fascinating is that in the western psychological view, the “self” or the “executive function” is actually a process and not really a thing. It waxes and wanes all the time, goes into the foreground and background of awareness depending on how much we need it, disappears when we sleep, is not the same as it was when we were little, much less the same as it was last year, and is even subtly different than it was last week.
So far, this should make a lot of sense to both psychologists and meditators. But here is where things get interesting: we all know that processes are not solid and change all the time, yet in this particular process there is a nagging sense that there is a solid permanent “me” hiding in that process somewhere. As if the process itself were a real solid thing in the same way that a table or chair is.
It is this unshakable sense of a solid “me” in the midst of this process that is the “self” that is referred to in the Dharma. When we talk about “no-self” in Buddhism, we are pointing to this sense of a solid self in and calling it an illusion. The process of “selfing” is real, the belief that it is somehow a permanent “me” is not.
To help understand how important this illusion is imagine that another mental process had this same illusion tied to it. Take memory for example. When we experience a memory we know that it isn’t “real” in the sense that it does not have a reality outside or our mental functioning. We know that memories come and go, are subject to change and can be forgotten. But what if every time you remembered something you assumed that the memory itself was “real” in the same way that a table or chair is real. That it was substantial and lasting. Even though you could not literally see or experience the memory with your five senses, you still had the unshakable belief that it was a real and solid thing that is supposed to last. Wouldn’t this be a set-up for frustration? Memories slip and slide out of consciousness and like every other mental function they are subject to dramatic change. If we expected them to never go away and always be there, we would constantly be in distress. This is exactly what is happening with us in terms of the self-process.
While the self-process creates narratives that organize our experiences into something recognizable, the illusion of self is inserted as a main character into all these narratives. We expect the character to be the same all the time, to never change or go away, to be “real.” And yet each moment we are running into a stark reality: the self is not as real as we believe it to be, and it certainly does not last. Over time this sense of solid “me” becomes the most salient feature of all of our experience and our greatest source of anxiety. The fact that we see this constantly changing process as a solid “me” creates endless problems for us because it sets up a never-ending fight between us and reality (and reality never loses).
What is odd is that according to psychology, this sense of a solid self is not an issue. In fact it is not really addressed at all. One part of the psychological literature explains that the self is a cognitive process like any other, and then another part of the literature goes on about protecting and promoting a healthy “self.” The fact that we are taking a process and turning it into a solid thing in our minds is simply not addressed.
In psychology, this point may have been missed because of the bias to study and theorize about pathology rather than health. The illusions and problems inherent in a “normally” functioning mind just don’t get a lot of research lab-time. So most theory in psychology works to get damaged selves back to “normal functioning.” Buddhism on the other hand, starts with the assumption that normal functioning is full of suffering caused by a false sense of self, and works to get people from a state of “normal” to enlightened.
Joining the Psychological Self with No-Self
In the book Transformations of Consciousness Jack Enlger, a psychologist and meditation teacher, attempts to reconcile the eastern and western approaches to self by proposing that these two traditions should be joined in a “spectrum model of self development.” The central idea being that the illusion of a solid self is a necessary developmental step that supports people in their learning and growth, but that once resilient mental health has been attained the direction for further growth lies in the shedding of this illusion.
What is great about this model is that it proposes that you can support someone in building their self-esteem and support another person in seeing through the illusion of self, and you are really doing the same thing: encouraging growth along the spectrum of self development, but from two different points. Further, Engler suggests that movement along the spectrum is a fairly linear process. People must begin with a strong solid self in order to move to the next developmental step of seeing it as an illusion. Engler is famous for boiling this idea down into the phrase: “you have to be somebody before you can be nobody.”
I see a lot of value in Engler’s model, but given my own experiences I would change it sometwhat. Rather than a linear model where the person goes from developing a self to seeing through the illusion of self, I would propose a dimensional model, where self development and insight develop concurrently. This can be imagined as an x/y axis with self development and insight development as separate axes.
This model makes more sense for a number of reasons. First, people who attain very high levels of insight also tend to be greatly engaged in further self development: travel, education, career changes, relationships, etc. They also tend to make the same mistakes that go with self development that people without insight make (any review of the scandals of meditation teachers should confirm this). This is something that you really wouldn’t expect with the linear model, because self development should stop when you reach that part of the spectrum where you are attaining insight into no-self.
In my personal experience, growth in insight has in no way inhibited or stopped self-development, rather it has made the process more fun and easier to understand. At the core of this dimensional model is an assumption that is somewhat different than Engler’s: seeing through the illusion of self does not make the self disappear. The self remains, it continues on in the lived experience, but it is no longer the center of experience anymore. It is put in its proper perspective, as a simple, natural process of the mind, like any other. The sense that this organizing process is a real permanent “me” diminishes with insight. Even with great insight the natural process of growth and change, of what we would call “self development” continues to unfold, but the self is no longer believed to be “real”, it is simply an experience like any other.
So, while on the surface it can seem like we in the enlightenment traditions are pretty mixed up about the self, the opposite is actually true: we are clear about who we are. That does not stop us from growing, having fun and being human. It simply gives us greater awareness of the process.
Author Info
This is a great article that helps delineate the boundaries of psychologically self and no self in Buddhism (anatta). As someone who is both a practicing Buddhist and a student of counseling I am really curious to know what the psychological definition of self actually is. I've really a fair number of books on counseling and they talk a lot about a healthy sense of self but they never really nail down what it is.
I was wondering if the author could provide me with an exact definition.
Hey – I’d be happy to give you an exact definition, but the only problem is deciding which one to choose! Because psychology is subdivided into so many different branches with different assumptions, you’re likely to run into a lot of them if you go looking.
One of the best summaries of the literature that I’ve run across though comes from Fabio Sani in his book “Self Continuity.” In the introduction he explains what I believe is the older, out-of-date view of self in psychology, which comes out of psychodynamic theory, which he calls “ego self” and contrasts it with the newer evidence-based view of self which he calls “bundle-self.” Essentially the bundle self is a collection of memories and experiences that are given the label “self” but which have no permanence.
If you are interested in the psychological theory of self, his book is a great place to start: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=b0-URG2NLxwC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Self-Continuity:+Individual+and+Collective+Perspectives&ots=xn5SKbmT1B&sig=uKvW5hdVbLU5Qo8pn2ba4WhI0Q0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Oops – I forgot to include another really important resource. There is a journal dedicated to research on the psychological self, called “Self and Identity”. Check it out:
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/15298868.html
Interesting. Essentially, we're talking about the two truths, the relative (self) and the absolute (no self), as our two axes here. I suppose a part of the problem is that certainly early buddhism emphasised developing the no-self aspect and renouncing the world, likely including the sense of developing self in the way we might think of today.
However of course, the 8 noble truths still include regulating behavior (etc. right speech) which no doubt would still require an amount of development-style work.
An excellent and interesting article. Thank you.
wonderful! Thank you, helps me a lot in my studies about impact of inner dialogue and self-position on identity and quality of life. Bliss!
Excellent essay. I plan to point others to it. This is such an important distinction to clarify. The unintentional tendency to suppress the arising of the process that creates the perception of an unchanging self can be a significant barrier to directly experiencing the process itself.
Check out my Pecha Kucha talk on this subject (http://daronlarson.blogspot.com/2010/08/appreciating-nothing.html) for some perspectives and analogies that I’ve learned from Shinzen Young on this topic.
We spend our entire lives inside our perceptions. Without insight into how they work together, they can function as the bars of a cage. Developing a deep intimacy with our perceptions of self and world over time allows us to distinguish the barriers from opportunities for getting out to enjoy a different perspective. We don't get rid of these illusions of the unchanging self and world, we begin to see through them. It's being confined to only experiencing as fixed concepts which can ratchet up our suffering. By becoming amphibious, we are able to move more easily between experiencing life both as a particle and as a wave.
great post! thanks for sharing your thoughts here.
your post reminded me of Ken Wilber's integral psychology model. imho, Wilber hashed the developmental stages better than anyone else i've encountered. since you've read "Transformations of Consciousness", i'll assume that you're also familiar with Wilber's Integral Psychology, wherein self-identity has a separate developmental line.
so my question: as a psychologist, what's your opinion about Wilber's integral psychology?
why do you think his model has not been adopted by mainstream academia?
Wilber's Integral Psychology http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/psych_mode…
as for the no-self, since you're open to talk about "enlightenment," may i ask if you have experienced no-self and whether you can rest on the no-self at will? if your answer is yes, then my question is: would you say that Shinzen Young's description of "the awkward period between the Self-Self and the No-Self" is/was true for you? – http://halsmith.info/wordpress/?p=37
that's all for now. i'm glad to meet another kindred geek on the path of the dharma.
here's to stream entry!
~C
There are a few questions here, so I’ll take them each one at at time.
I am just now getting aquainted with Wilber’s work and – you guessed it – I’m finding a kindred spirit in his thinking. We certainly have a similar take on this process. And, as you might have guessed, since I went all the way through grad school for clinical psychology and got my Doctorate without hearing about him, I’d say his work is not accepted in mainstream psychology. This is a shame, because I think it has a lot of relevance, particularly for things like mood disorders, which are now getting treated with meditation more and more (that’s another topic I could go on about – and have on my website).
As far as my own attainments, like I said, I’m not shy about that stuff at all. After all, I’m not a monk, so those monastic rules don’t apply to me. So yes, I’ve experience non-self directly. Now, keep in mind that different traditions tend to define it differently, but within the tradition I trained in (Burmese Vipassana), no-self dawns gradually through a series of stages and then really hits home at stream-entry. And while I wouldn’t say that I can “rest” in it, the mind can “alight” on it easily now. If you are curious about this and would like to know more, feel free to contact me through my website or at alohadharma@gmail.com
As far as the awkward period between Self and no-self, I have to say that I almost laughed out loud when I read that because I had not heard of it before but it was instantly recognizable. Luckily, it wasn’t too bad for me, but it was still pretty awkward. Interestingly, part of the way that I outgrew that period was by writing about Dharma! Maybe that is the motivation behind a lot of people’s teachings!
Anywhoo – great questions! Please keep ‘em coming.
Ron, thanks a lot for entertaining my question and providing candid answers. i really appreciate your honesty. i think i just found another kindred Buddhist geek
keep on writing and sharing your thoughts. love your website and your about page.
see you around,
~C
Thank you for this very helpful article on this seeming paradox. I plan to use this in my teaching intro courses to Buddhism and meditation. Students, and many people are confused about non-self and what that could mean, especially in the light of ingrained ideas such as having self-esteem and confidence. To me, I think its the difference between 'finding yourself' and 'knowing yourself.' I think the term finding reifies that their is a self, and is also quite a New Agey term; however one can know oneself through insight and is compatible with the idea of non-self or the self as a process.
Using this as a teaching tool is probably the best compliment I could get – thanks so much for finding value in it!
I am not a shy or reclusive type of guy, so please let your students know that I welcome their questions and would enjoy supporting them in understanding this difficult topic.
Viva anatta!
Ron,
just a follow up question:
i read on your about page that you're a new dad. congratulations. i'm a new dad too. so i feel your bliss and pain
that said, i'm interested to know how you balance your role as a parent with your practice, how does your attainment of enlightenment (stream-entry to be exact) make you better parent? do you consciously apply that realization as a parent or do you keep them separate (e.g. when parenting just be a parent, when no-self just be no-self, etc.)?
of course, my assumption is that enlightenment makes one a better human being (at least in general), so ditto, a better parent. but that is a big projection/assumption on my part since i don't have (yet) experienced stream entry. that said, i do my best to be the best parent i can be. one thing i learned so far is that, enlightened or not, one of the best tests (if not the best) for one's level of maturity (self developmental line) is to be a parent.
that's all for now. looking forward to your candid response.
thanks,
~C
Interesting question, it has been on my mind for a while now. The main thing that I can say about parenting and practice is that it isn’t the big conflict that I thought it might become.
Just like everybody else, I projected a bunch of stuff onto parenthood before it actually happened. I thought “oh man -when am I going to sit? This is going to suck!” and I also thought “this will be perfect! it will be like having a little bodhisattva around – I’ll learn so much!”
Needless to say, all those projects were perfectly natural, and perfectly wrong. I ended up where I am now, sometimes loving it, sometimes hating it, but finding that fundementally, it did not change the core of the practice or what the path is about. What it did do is open up a new set of concepts about my “self” that needed to be worked on.
As far as being a better parent… that is a tough one. I was pretty far along the path before having a kid, so I can compare and contrast. I will say that I still experience things like frustration and impatience, but they are just experiences now, and I have a lot more freedome about how to react to them. Usually I just give them a little space and attention and they fade out pretty quickly.
One thing I can say for sure: having a kid does AMAZING things for metta meditation. If you practice metta, you’ll find that it jumps up in strength exponentially once you have a kid.
Ron,
thanks again. i find your responses to be refreshingly candid. a lot of teachers out there don't address the parenting aspect (probably because most teachers, at least the popular ones, are either not parents, or already done with their parenting role) that's why i have more affinity with householder practitioners/teachers than traditional monks/nuns. but so far, i haven't come across a householder/parent teacher which openly talks about enlightenment and how they apply it to daily life. maybe you could talk more about this on your site or your future posts on BuddhistGeeks. will definitely read up on them
take care. hugs and metta to your little buddha,
~C
Thank you Ron for an excellent article! We need more psychologists like you to convince the western culture of the developmental potential that we all have.
Antero
Everyone else has said sensible things about content, so I'll just remark in passing that I think you have a wonderful style of writing: conversational, but never trite; profound, but never obscurantist; easy-going but with a sense of urgency and direction. I look forward to reading your future posts (and maybe a book in a few years, eh?).
I agree!
I agree with Andy, Ron. Keep on writing! Thanks for the great article.
Aw shucks – thanks for the encouragement. I am indeed considering a book, though between changing diapers and seeing patients, I have no idea when I’ll write it!
Kenneth Folk mentioned that when Bill Hamilton was still alive he wanted to write a book that would separate the dharma from the B.S. i'd like to read a book about that with a chapter on parenting
Hey – if you haven't done so yet, check out Daniel Ingram's "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha". It's a must-read if you are interested in separating the dharma from BS. Nothing about parenting in there but he does have a pretty big section on Sila at the front of the book.
i've read that a while back.. i have the PDF as well as the printed book. it's my kind of kick-ass dharma
here's my review of the book – http://www.c4chaos.com/2009/01/mastering-the-core…
Excellent! I have wanted someone to explore this so eloquently. I'm a practicing Buddhist (and meditation teacher!) and have also spent a hefty chunk of time in therapy. Your model resonates with me: it is possible to build a healthy sense of self and understand its functioning psychologically…while seeing through it. In fact, I think one helps the other.
I like to think of the self as the paradigm through which I see the world. As I grow in wisdom and my reality changes, the paradigm changes by killing the old self and generating a new self. So, the way I see it, the process is a cycling of the self with the no-self. You can't change your paradigm and grow without having a paradigm in the first place.
C,
Your question about enlightenment and parenting reminded me of a talk I went to by the Dalai Lama. When it came time for questions, one deeply earnest woman asked "How should we parent our children". DL burst out with one of his delightful laughs and said "I have absoloutely no idea!" He explained this by saying he never had children.
As a mother of 4, Psychotherapist, and Awakening Coach who has studied Buddhism and Vedanta I can say you bring all of who you are in the moment (process of selfing) to whatever you are doing. It is definitely beneficial to your child for you to continue to grow along both tracks, psychologically and spiritually and to let that inform everything you do with and for your children. As far as fitting in spiritual practice, remember it does not need to happen on a cushion. Make your practice to be as mindful and present as possible, even while changing the diapers. Your child will thrive in an atmosphere of open presence and love.
Does anyone know the who the artist is of the painting in the article?