No Self, or a Better Self?
smallmccall
What evidence is there that we exist?
It generally comes down to observing that we think, speak and act in certain ways, and concluding that there is a “self” of some sort. It can seem as though there must be someone that has, and even is, all of that.
If we rely on what we observe or experience, we reach an empirical conclusion, and in this case conclude that we have and in fact are an empirical self. And of course, since what we think, say and do never stays the same, a self that is empirically derived or inferred will not stay the same either. As a result, we might conclude that our empirical self is also an impermanent self.
From there, the tendency may be to seek to discover or realize “who I really am”, by which the spiritual path becomes one of self-realization. And if we are the sum total of all that we think, say and do, the aspiration to refine and improve that self naturally results in a path of self-improvement.
It may not occur to us that this empirical and impermanent self is really just a product of inference, and that there is really no “self” at all, be it permanent, impermanent or otherwise, and that awakening means realizing that there is no “self” whatsoever. In particular, the belief in the empirical self is the initial illusion which we must dispel as the first irreversible shift or step on the path to awakening. This isn’t to say that, when we awaken, our lives aren’t more peaceful, or that we won’t be more kind and compassionate. Rather, the more positive qualities that arise are the result of dispelling the belief in a self, rather than seeking to discover and improve upon one. After that, we can start to reveal the the underlying sense of "me" that must eventually be dispelled as well
The Empirical Self
When we start on the path to awakening it can seem that, for example, we are our actions, and this is the way we might think of or refer to a person: someone who is the sum total of their actions of body, speech, and mind, and who doesn't exist apart from these. As a result, we also come to believe that there is someone that is the agent or controller of those actions. For example, simply raising our right hand can be used as proof that there is a “self” that made that happen. By this, everything we see, hear, think or otherwise experience can be used to bolster the sense of “that’s me!”.
As a conclusion we reach based on what we observe, concluding there is such a self is empirical knowledge. In other words, it is not something that we inherently or intuitively know, but something that we come to know as a result of observing what is happening in and around us. In this case, we come to believe we have (and in fact are) an “empirical self” that is both real and verifiable.
And yet, if we look in and among all that is happening, there isn’t such a “self” at all: we just assume there is. Once we conclusively see this, what we think, say and do continues just as it all did before: all of that observable experience still happens. Also, the sense that there is something much more fundamental, which resonates with the affirmation “I Am”, remains. However, the belief that there is someone that goes by our name and that controls, has and even is all of that observable experience goes away.
As described in the Buddhist tradition, we are born with the underlying tendency to infer or conclude that there is such a “self”, based on what we observe. That there is such a “self” is quite convincing, by which its supposed existence has become a focus of Western thought. For example, the idea that there is an “empirical self” was suggested by Immanuel Kant, who theorized that there is not just this consciousness of oneself and one’s psychological states as empirical self-knowledge, but that there is also a more fundamental consciousness in the form of what he termed “transcendental apperception”.
This was echoed some years later by William James, who explored the “empirical self” that each of us have, and which is composed of everything that we are tempted to call by the name of “me”. He suggested that, in the widest possible sense, someone’s self is all that they possibly can call theirs, such as their body, their possession, their family and their reputation. He contrasted this empirical self with what he referred to as the nominative self or “I”, the pure principle of personal identity, or the pure ego.
A contemporary definition from the field of psychology is that the empirical self is the self that is known by the self that is the knower. Thus, as with Kant and James, there is a distinction between an empirical self that we observe, “in action” as it were, and a type of self that is assumed to be the observer, knower or witness.
Holding On to the Empirical Self
That there appears to be two types or levels of a self is, in fact, exactly what we find as we awaken. The difference, though, is that while Western thought might posit the actual existence of these two types of self (or that these descriptors will at least always apply), through inquiry we come to see that the empirical self (as the 1st fetter), as well as underlying sense of "me" (as the 8th fetter) are both illusions.
That there is no “self” may not make sense prior to the initial paradigm shift when we "break" the 1st fetter. In fact, the prospect of seeing that there is no “self” that is in charge or has our experience may evoke a bit of fear. For example, we might be concerned that we will experience being annihilated or killed. Or, we might fear that once we experience the initial insight shift there will be nothing whatsoever, that experience will go completely blank, or that our memories will be wiped clean. Or, we may simply not be able to imagine what it would be like to not have a “self” of one kind or another. The notion of an empirical self that is real, and which changes and grows, can therefore present us with an opportunity to retain the belief in a self which, from our current perspective, may not seem to be an illusion.
For example, according to one approach that I am familiar with, we should assume that we do in fact have such a self, as the sum total of our activities such as our thinking, our seeing, our feeling, our willing, and our imagining. In Buddhist terminology, all of that would be assumed to be our svabhāva, our “self-nature” or “own-being”. This then opens up the possibility that, beyond our present mode of existence and experience, there are other deeper dimensions of being which we can grow towards. Such deeper dimensions are inconceivable if we think of ourselves being fixed or permanent, and we shut ourselves off from that something deeper by asserting “No, this is me.” By this, we just have to avoid abstracting an absolute, permanent or unchanging self, which is apart from and somehow activating all of our activities.
Such an approach would therefore be concerned with the growth of the impermanent self, rather than realizing that there is no self whatsoever. We would refine the empirical self and make it ever more positive - it would seem as though the components of this real empirical self are the raw materials that we need to work on and transform into something beautiful, and are as necessary to our spiritual growth as clay is to a potter. We might even speak of something that grows, and assume we will be able to sort out the metaphysics of that “something” once we access those deeper dimensions of being.
The Glass Ceiling of the Self
There are various reasons that the approach of developing and refining an empirical self does not lead to, or even allow, the initial shift along the path to awakening. Perhaps the most important reason is that the notion of a permanent self is not the only obstacle to awakening. Believing that there is a constantly changing empirical self, by definition, means that the belief in a self nevertheless persists. By superimposing the concept of “impermanence” onto what and who we presume we are, we invent an impermanent self, a version of the self that is just as believable (if not more so) than a permanent self.
In other words, an impermanent "something" is still a something, and we may not realize that we have abstracted an impermanent “self” as being ultimately real and true. We might tell ourselves that we or others are impermanent and therefore not substantial, but that doesn’t change the fact that we still believe in the existence of a self, one that is impermanent.
As an example, imagine being part of a large crowd at a concert venue. We know that there is no such thing as a pre-existing “crowd” that has always existed and always will exist. Instead, we know that a crowd only “exists” when people file into the venue, and that the crowd changes as people come and go. Even though it’s not a permanent crowd, we nevertheless recognize a “crowd”. We might deconstruct the crowd in our head, recognizing that it is the sum of its components (i.e., people), apart from which it is merely a name. We may thus conclude that it is simply a momentary collocation of causal factors, such as a stadium and the people inside, that has no “crowd-ness” to it that makes it a crowd.
However, while we can tell and even convince ourselves that it’s not really a "crowd” per se, it doesn’t change the fact that we nevertheless recognize and experience a “crowd”. Similarly, we might tell ourselves that there isn’t or can’t be a permanent or abiding “self”, and that we only have or are an impermanent “self” as the sum of certain components or a collocation of certain factors. However, the perception of an impermanent self is still the perception of a self.
Also, if we believe that there is an impermanent self, such a belief will likely be much more difficult to eradicate than the belief in a permanent self, in that something that is impermanent is more difficult to find or pin down. For example, if something is impermanent, and by inference without any substance, it will be more likely that we will subconsciously just allow it to exist, because we know we’ll never find it if we look for it. Also, the apparent proof of an empirical and impermanent self (i.e., all that we think, say, do and otherwise experience) is always present, which constantly reinforces the belief.
Affirming that there is an empirical self means that the spiritual path can become a matter of understanding the law or principle, such as impermanence, emptiness, or cause-and-effect conditionality, that explains the existence of not just that self, but of everything else that we experience as well. If so, it essentially sends us off in a completely different direction, by which the path is concerned with seeing the nature of reality and “the way things really are”, as opposed to seeing “the way I really am not”.
If the intent is to refine an empirical self, the spiritual path might then be largely about engaging in “good works” in order to transform ourselves. This can lead to engaging with all sorts of activities, especially “spiritual” activities, that we believe will transform us. Though this can be of some benefit to ourselves and others, it can also end up further reinforcing the idea that “I” am being transformed into a better person.
Finally, refining an empirical self can also set up idealistic expectations as to what we will be like when that refinement occurs with the first shift. For example, in the approach I am familiar with, our new self that arises out of the ashes of the previous self will be continually aware, emotionally positive and creative of our new self, and be free of negative mental states. we will experience a natural, clean, and even serene withdrawal from involvement in the affairs of daily life. There is also the expectation that we will have a perfect and unblemished ethical and moral life, and be seen as an infallible source of guidance and example for others. If we have such unrealistic expectations of ourselves and others, and strive to cultivate these idealized qualities, we will go in a much different direction than awakening.
Letting Go of the Empirical Self
While there may be additional reasons why seeking to refine a changing, empirical self can take us in the wrong direction, in the end this simply is not what happens as we start to awaken. Once the initial “insight” shift occurs, we realize that the belief in a “self” of whatever sort was not just an illusion, but was the the problem all along. What is happening is in fact happening, and it continues to do so, but none of it is or needs to be associated with a self that is permanent, impermanent, empirical or otherwise. Daily life is remarkably similar to what it was before, and rather than a new self arising out of the ashes of the old one, the illusion of self evaporates altogether, with nothing taking its place.
The good news is that our body is still recognized, our thoughts, memories and emotions still appear, and we don’t lose track of the important people and things in our life. The only real change is that there is no longer the sense of someone who has or is all of that, or that is the agent or experiencer behind it all. This initial shift is irreversible, just as we can never go back to believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, and in the Buddhist tradition is known by terms such as "entering the stream" or going through the Gateless Gate. As far as those around us might be concerned, they may not necessarily notice that anything has changed, including the fact that we are not ethically perfect, serene or continually aware. However, the difference in our lived experience after this shift is substantial, a difference that is difficult if not impossible to understand unless one has had the experience themselves.
Buddhist literature of course uses references to a “self” in a conventional way. For example, in a verse from the Dhammapada, the Buddha is recorded to have said: “O monk, by yourself, exhort yourself, and examine yourself; thus guarding yourself and being mindful, you will live in peace”. And yet, despite the repeated use of the term “yourself”, the Buddha did not perceive whoever heard that statement as having or being a “self” of any sort, whether permanent, impermanent or otherwise, because the Buddha himself no longer experienced any sort of actual “self”. This is despite the fact that the hearer of that statement may well have seen both the Buddha and themselves as having or being a “self” of some sort.
This illustrates that, once we awaken, we don’t forget what is meant by an “empirical self” or how others perceive themselves and therefore us. We can still use first-person pronouns to describe “ourselves” with the same ease we always had, even if such ideas have no more actual meaning than talking about Santa Claus once we learn “he” doesn’t exist either. We will have many of the same preferences and tendencies, and to the outside world we will appear to have and be a “self”; however, we won’t have any sense of self or “I” whatsoever. Thus, the use of the term “self” as a convention of speech is one thing, while erroneously believing that there actually is a self of some sort, whether permanent, impermanent or otherwise, is quite another.
It generally comes down to observing that we think, speak and act in certain ways, and concluding that there is a “self” of some sort. It can seem as though there must be someone that has, and even is, all of that.
If we rely on what we observe or experience, we reach an empirical conclusion, and in this case conclude that we have and in fact are an empirical self. And of course, since what we think, say and do never stays the same, a self that is empirically derived or inferred will not stay the same either. As a result, we might conclude that our empirical self is also an impermanent self.
From there, the tendency may be to seek to discover or realize “who I really am”, by which the spiritual path becomes one of self-realization. And if we are the sum total of all that we think, say and do, the aspiration to refine and improve that self naturally results in a path of self-improvement.
It may not occur to us that this empirical and impermanent self is really just a product of inference, and that there is really no “self” at all, be it permanent, impermanent or otherwise, and that awakening means realizing that there is no “self” whatsoever. In particular, the belief in the empirical self is the initial illusion which we must dispel as the first irreversible shift or step on the path to awakening. This isn’t to say that, when we awaken, our lives aren’t more peaceful, or that we won’t be more kind and compassionate. Rather, the more positive qualities that arise are the result of dispelling the belief in a self, rather than seeking to discover and improve upon one. After that, we can start to reveal the the underlying sense of "me" that must eventually be dispelled as well
The Empirical Self
When we start on the path to awakening it can seem that, for example, we are our actions, and this is the way we might think of or refer to a person: someone who is the sum total of their actions of body, speech, and mind, and who doesn't exist apart from these. As a result, we also come to believe that there is someone that is the agent or controller of those actions. For example, simply raising our right hand can be used as proof that there is a “self” that made that happen. By this, everything we see, hear, think or otherwise experience can be used to bolster the sense of “that’s me!”.
As a conclusion we reach based on what we observe, concluding there is such a self is empirical knowledge. In other words, it is not something that we inherently or intuitively know, but something that we come to know as a result of observing what is happening in and around us. In this case, we come to believe we have (and in fact are) an “empirical self” that is both real and verifiable.
And yet, if we look in and among all that is happening, there isn’t such a “self” at all: we just assume there is. Once we conclusively see this, what we think, say and do continues just as it all did before: all of that observable experience still happens. Also, the sense that there is something much more fundamental, which resonates with the affirmation “I Am”, remains. However, the belief that there is someone that goes by our name and that controls, has and even is all of that observable experience goes away.
As described in the Buddhist tradition, we are born with the underlying tendency to infer or conclude that there is such a “self”, based on what we observe. That there is such a “self” is quite convincing, by which its supposed existence has become a focus of Western thought. For example, the idea that there is an “empirical self” was suggested by Immanuel Kant, who theorized that there is not just this consciousness of oneself and one’s psychological states as empirical self-knowledge, but that there is also a more fundamental consciousness in the form of what he termed “transcendental apperception”.
This was echoed some years later by William James, who explored the “empirical self” that each of us have, and which is composed of everything that we are tempted to call by the name of “me”. He suggested that, in the widest possible sense, someone’s self is all that they possibly can call theirs, such as their body, their possession, their family and their reputation. He contrasted this empirical self with what he referred to as the nominative self or “I”, the pure principle of personal identity, or the pure ego.
A contemporary definition from the field of psychology is that the empirical self is the self that is known by the self that is the knower. Thus, as with Kant and James, there is a distinction between an empirical self that we observe, “in action” as it were, and a type of self that is assumed to be the observer, knower or witness.
Holding On to the Empirical Self
That there appears to be two types or levels of a self is, in fact, exactly what we find as we awaken. The difference, though, is that while Western thought might posit the actual existence of these two types of self (or that these descriptors will at least always apply), through inquiry we come to see that the empirical self (as the 1st fetter), as well as underlying sense of "me" (as the 8th fetter) are both illusions.
That there is no “self” may not make sense prior to the initial paradigm shift when we "break" the 1st fetter. In fact, the prospect of seeing that there is no “self” that is in charge or has our experience may evoke a bit of fear. For example, we might be concerned that we will experience being annihilated or killed. Or, we might fear that once we experience the initial insight shift there will be nothing whatsoever, that experience will go completely blank, or that our memories will be wiped clean. Or, we may simply not be able to imagine what it would be like to not have a “self” of one kind or another. The notion of an empirical self that is real, and which changes and grows, can therefore present us with an opportunity to retain the belief in a self which, from our current perspective, may not seem to be an illusion.
For example, according to one approach that I am familiar with, we should assume that we do in fact have such a self, as the sum total of our activities such as our thinking, our seeing, our feeling, our willing, and our imagining. In Buddhist terminology, all of that would be assumed to be our svabhāva, our “self-nature” or “own-being”. This then opens up the possibility that, beyond our present mode of existence and experience, there are other deeper dimensions of being which we can grow towards. Such deeper dimensions are inconceivable if we think of ourselves being fixed or permanent, and we shut ourselves off from that something deeper by asserting “No, this is me.” By this, we just have to avoid abstracting an absolute, permanent or unchanging self, which is apart from and somehow activating all of our activities.
Such an approach would therefore be concerned with the growth of the impermanent self, rather than realizing that there is no self whatsoever. We would refine the empirical self and make it ever more positive - it would seem as though the components of this real empirical self are the raw materials that we need to work on and transform into something beautiful, and are as necessary to our spiritual growth as clay is to a potter. We might even speak of something that grows, and assume we will be able to sort out the metaphysics of that “something” once we access those deeper dimensions of being.
The Glass Ceiling of the Self
There are various reasons that the approach of developing and refining an empirical self does not lead to, or even allow, the initial shift along the path to awakening. Perhaps the most important reason is that the notion of a permanent self is not the only obstacle to awakening. Believing that there is a constantly changing empirical self, by definition, means that the belief in a self nevertheless persists. By superimposing the concept of “impermanence” onto what and who we presume we are, we invent an impermanent self, a version of the self that is just as believable (if not more so) than a permanent self.
In other words, an impermanent "something" is still a something, and we may not realize that we have abstracted an impermanent “self” as being ultimately real and true. We might tell ourselves that we or others are impermanent and therefore not substantial, but that doesn’t change the fact that we still believe in the existence of a self, one that is impermanent.
As an example, imagine being part of a large crowd at a concert venue. We know that there is no such thing as a pre-existing “crowd” that has always existed and always will exist. Instead, we know that a crowd only “exists” when people file into the venue, and that the crowd changes as people come and go. Even though it’s not a permanent crowd, we nevertheless recognize a “crowd”. We might deconstruct the crowd in our head, recognizing that it is the sum of its components (i.e., people), apart from which it is merely a name. We may thus conclude that it is simply a momentary collocation of causal factors, such as a stadium and the people inside, that has no “crowd-ness” to it that makes it a crowd.
However, while we can tell and even convince ourselves that it’s not really a "crowd” per se, it doesn’t change the fact that we nevertheless recognize and experience a “crowd”. Similarly, we might tell ourselves that there isn’t or can’t be a permanent or abiding “self”, and that we only have or are an impermanent “self” as the sum of certain components or a collocation of certain factors. However, the perception of an impermanent self is still the perception of a self.
Also, if we believe that there is an impermanent self, such a belief will likely be much more difficult to eradicate than the belief in a permanent self, in that something that is impermanent is more difficult to find or pin down. For example, if something is impermanent, and by inference without any substance, it will be more likely that we will subconsciously just allow it to exist, because we know we’ll never find it if we look for it. Also, the apparent proof of an empirical and impermanent self (i.e., all that we think, say, do and otherwise experience) is always present, which constantly reinforces the belief.
Affirming that there is an empirical self means that the spiritual path can become a matter of understanding the law or principle, such as impermanence, emptiness, or cause-and-effect conditionality, that explains the existence of not just that self, but of everything else that we experience as well. If so, it essentially sends us off in a completely different direction, by which the path is concerned with seeing the nature of reality and “the way things really are”, as opposed to seeing “the way I really am not”.
If the intent is to refine an empirical self, the spiritual path might then be largely about engaging in “good works” in order to transform ourselves. This can lead to engaging with all sorts of activities, especially “spiritual” activities, that we believe will transform us. Though this can be of some benefit to ourselves and others, it can also end up further reinforcing the idea that “I” am being transformed into a better person.
Finally, refining an empirical self can also set up idealistic expectations as to what we will be like when that refinement occurs with the first shift. For example, in the approach I am familiar with, our new self that arises out of the ashes of the previous self will be continually aware, emotionally positive and creative of our new self, and be free of negative mental states. we will experience a natural, clean, and even serene withdrawal from involvement in the affairs of daily life. There is also the expectation that we will have a perfect and unblemished ethical and moral life, and be seen as an infallible source of guidance and example for others. If we have such unrealistic expectations of ourselves and others, and strive to cultivate these idealized qualities, we will go in a much different direction than awakening.
Letting Go of the Empirical Self
While there may be additional reasons why seeking to refine a changing, empirical self can take us in the wrong direction, in the end this simply is not what happens as we start to awaken. Once the initial “insight” shift occurs, we realize that the belief in a “self” of whatever sort was not just an illusion, but was the the problem all along. What is happening is in fact happening, and it continues to do so, but none of it is or needs to be associated with a self that is permanent, impermanent, empirical or otherwise. Daily life is remarkably similar to what it was before, and rather than a new self arising out of the ashes of the old one, the illusion of self evaporates altogether, with nothing taking its place.
The good news is that our body is still recognized, our thoughts, memories and emotions still appear, and we don’t lose track of the important people and things in our life. The only real change is that there is no longer the sense of someone who has or is all of that, or that is the agent or experiencer behind it all. This initial shift is irreversible, just as we can never go back to believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, and in the Buddhist tradition is known by terms such as "entering the stream" or going through the Gateless Gate. As far as those around us might be concerned, they may not necessarily notice that anything has changed, including the fact that we are not ethically perfect, serene or continually aware. However, the difference in our lived experience after this shift is substantial, a difference that is difficult if not impossible to understand unless one has had the experience themselves.
Buddhist literature of course uses references to a “self” in a conventional way. For example, in a verse from the Dhammapada, the Buddha is recorded to have said: “O monk, by yourself, exhort yourself, and examine yourself; thus guarding yourself and being mindful, you will live in peace”. And yet, despite the repeated use of the term “yourself”, the Buddha did not perceive whoever heard that statement as having or being a “self” of any sort, whether permanent, impermanent or otherwise, because the Buddha himself no longer experienced any sort of actual “self”. This is despite the fact that the hearer of that statement may well have seen both the Buddha and themselves as having or being a “self” of some sort.
This illustrates that, once we awaken, we don’t forget what is meant by an “empirical self” or how others perceive themselves and therefore us. We can still use first-person pronouns to describe “ourselves” with the same ease we always had, even if such ideas have no more actual meaning than talking about Santa Claus once we learn “he” doesn’t exist either. We will have many of the same preferences and tendencies, and to the outside world we will appear to have and be a “self”; however, we won’t have any sense of self or “I” whatsoever. Thus, the use of the term “self” as a convention of speech is one thing, while erroneously believing that there actually is a self of some sort, whether permanent, impermanent or otherwise, is quite another.