Category: Buddhist Meditation | Buddhist Path | Mind Trainer Articles | Recent Meditation Posts
Where Buddhism and modern psychology differ
It is said that recognizing the true nature of “self” eradicates all ignorance and suffering and leads to nirvana, ultimate peace. If this is true, then we would do well to try to understand what self is and what it isn’t, which is exactly what the Buddha did. Clarifying assumptions relating to the notion of self is one of the most fundamental bases of the Buddha’s teachings.
Self is something we can all conceive of and feel. If I ask you, “Are you there?” You will answer, “Yes, I am.” And if I ask you what you feel, you will say, “I feel this and that.” The idea that the “I” or “self” that is feeling something exists is accepted without any questioning, isn’t it? And although we never question self and don’t know what, exactly, it is, we are constantly trying to protect it. And our efforts to protect it generate strong feelings. Perceiving ourselves to be threatened or embarrassed by others, for example, tends to lead to a potent sense of self-preservation.
The Buddha recognized this too. His reaction was: Wait a moment. Let’s investigate this. What is this “self” that we’re trying so intently to protect? Let’s dig deep and look at the nature of this “I” that we take so seriously and would do everything and anything for.
As we participate in this investigation, it’s important to note that the Buddhist idea of self and the self or ego that modern psychologists talk about refer to very different things. I’m not a psychologist, but basically it seems to me that the Western understanding of ego or self is much narrower than the traditional Buddhist understanding. For example, when Western psychologists talk about the ego, they are generally referring to the human experience of self, whereas the sense of self described in Buddhist teachings is experienced by all sentient beings, not just humans. When Buddhists talk about the self, everything and everyone is included. There’s a question of terminology here that can lead to confusion because the term means different things in different contexts.
Modern psychologists seem to suggest that an individual’s self or ego develops as they mature. They focus on building a “healthy ego” or “healthy self.” According to the Buddhist concept, “self” is more of an individualized notion of identity or identification from the very beginning of a being’s existence—not just humans, all sentient beings. There is a subtle identification with the self as being “that which exists as me and needs to be preserved” from the moment a being takes form. This may be one distinct way to differentiate the two approaches.
Furthermore, when Buddhists talk about the self, we are not just talking about the ego, we are talking about identities in general. And not just the identities or singularities of humans or other sentient beings, but also of other phenomena! We distinguish two kinds of self: the self or identity of a sentient being, and the identity of things. On the level of human beings, for instance, the “self” is characterized by a personal identity. On the level of other phenomena, a tree has the identity and singular characteristics of a tree. This is a tree’s “selfhood” according to Buddhist terminology, and this is true for every other object as well. So when we explore the notion of “self” in Buddhism, the term refers to both the identity of beings and the identification of phenomena.
Another way to look at the different categories of the experienced “self” is that some behaviors are inborn and others are learned. The inborn self arises from our karmic imprints. Nobody has to tell us that we exist, that we need to protect ourselves; we have a sense of self from a very young age. This innate sense of self is one aspect of our investigation. What is it? Where is it? What does it look like?
Then there is the conceptual self, which we are not born with. There are ideas about the self that we learn from philosophers, religions, and teachers. We’re told that the self is so great, or that there’s a universal self or an individual self, etc. These interpretations are not innate. From the Buddha’s point of view, they are simply additional obscurations that cause confusion. They don’t help. We have enough misconceptions as it is—we don’t need more! The first kind of self, as we’ve seen, is the inborn self or ego which exists in all living beings. The second one, the imputed one, is mainly a human creation.
What about “ego?” Ego has to do with clinging to the idea of self. It is a mental construct—that is, an idea about self. To my mind, this has a different flavor than the innate self. Ego is what grasps and believes in a self, right? Even when we start to question and dismantle the existence of self, we’re probably not questioning the ego-clinging part because clinging and attachment are there, we experience them.
Is our assumption right or wrong? That would depend on whether the self exists or not. If the self exists and you believe it exists, you’re right, aren’t you? There’s nothing wrong with that. But if you take something to be existent when it isn’t, then there’s a problem.
How do we investigate whether the self, the identity of a person, exists or not? Remember that there’s the feeling of self that we and other beings are born with. And there’s the imputed self that we learn from books, teachers, and any external sources. We can observe and analyze both of them. But the main issue—the bigger problem—is the inborn aspect of the self. It’s much easier to understand that the imputed self doesn’t exist; what has been learned can be unlearned. But the experiential self is harder to understand, which is why we need to look at it closely.
Ultimately, the Buddha says none of these can really exist. This is clear when we look at the selflessness of things, isn’t it? Ultimately, we find that neither the body nor the mind nor phenomena exist as independent, permanent entities. But on a relative, temporary level, we might say that they do. There’s a cup, here’s a body, there’s a table, here’s a mind, and so on. Temporarily yes, they function and we can identify them. But the self, your self, can you identify it?
