The Buddhist tradition and the field of Western psychology define the "self" (or ego) in similar ways. They agree that the self is not something a person is born with; it is therefore not an inherent human trait. They both see the self as something that develops over time in response to one's interactions with others and with the environment. They agree that the function of the self is to integrate our subjective experiences in order to provide us with a sense of internal cohesion and personal continuity (personal continuity is the sense that "I" am the same person from one moment to the next).
Buddhism teaches that the self we perceive as a solid and integrated entity is, in reality, just an illusion. If we focus our attention on our internal experiences, we will eventually see that this "self" is nothing more than a collection of experiences - of thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and sensations - that arise and then pass; there is no permanent substance or structure - no "self" - underlying these experiences.
This is, in fact, quite consistent with many of the mainstream theories underlying Western psychotherapy practice. Psychodynamic and constructivist theories suggest that, for each person, the sense of self is achieved through the interactions of many different "self representations." A self-representation is an unconscious collection of related schemas (ideas and beliefs) that produces a particular experience of the self in a given moment. A person has many self-representations and any of them can be dominant at a given moment in time. Thus, the "self" one experiences "is actually being constructed anew from moment to moment" (Jack Engler, "Therapeutic Aims in Psychotherapy and Meditation").
In short, when we talk of the "self" in Buddhism or of the "self" in Western psychology, we can be sure we are talking about the same concept. The differences in how the two traditions deal with the self is not in how they define it; rather, it is in the role each believes the "self" plays in human lives and human functioning.
Whereas Buddhism sees the self as the primary source of all human suffering, Western psychology sees it as necessary for healthy functioning. Buddhism teaches that suffering can only be alleviated when a person realizes that what he perceives as a cohesive, integrated, and continuous self is only an illusion and that it disappears under close scrutiny.
In contrast, Western psychotherapists see the lack of a stable, integrated, and cohesive self as a major cause of suffering. A self without cohesion is fragmented; complete fragmentation results in psychosis. In less extreme forms, a loosely cohered self caueses a person to experience a deep sense of emptiness accompanied by desperate (but unsuccessful) attempts to fill it. Western psychotherapy practice seeks to alleviate suffering by strengthing the self, fortifying its boundaries, and integrating its various components.
Which tradition is right? Do we suffer because we believe in a self that doesn't exist? Or do we suffer because our self needs to be integrated and strengthened? And how is it that Western psychotherapy borrows from Buddhist practices that seek to accomplish the exact opposite of what it aims to achieve?
There are some psychotherapists who make this very point and argue that Buddhist practices have no place in psychotherapy. Others embrace Buddhist teachings and practices wholeheartedly and use them as the foundation for their psychotherapy practice. Still others believe that Buddhist practices have a place in psychotherapy but caution against using them as substitutes. Practices like insight and mindfulness meditation are not equivalent to psychotherapy. In fact, as we've already established, while meditation and psychotherapy both aim to relieve suffering, they do so via fundamentally opposite strategies.
I think it is interesting to note that Western psychotherapy borrows from Buddhist practices, but not the other way around. Buddhism borrows nothing from Western psychology. When Western psychotherapists use specific Buddhist practices as interventions they use these practices outside of their original context. They do not use them as they are used by Buddhists. Buddhists engage in various types of meditation with the ultimate goal of achieving enlightenment (which also brings about freedom from suffering). When a psychotherapist teaches a patient to engage in mindfulness meditation he does not do this in an effort to help this patient see through the illusion of self to become enlightened. Rather, he hopes that insight (Vipassana) mediation and mindfulness meditation will help the patient to build ego strength. He hopes to strengthen the patient's "self" by teaching him to observe his thoughts and feelings objectively, to approach his internal experiences with acceptance, or to recognize the role that identifying with maladaptive thoughts plays in generating negative emotional states. These are all functions that Western psychology traditionally ascribes to the ego. These are all worthwhile endeavors but they are not goals that are pursued within a traditional Buddhist framework.
I suppose there is a bit of irony in how the West has chosen to embrace Buddhist ideas. We adopt Buddhist practices in an effort to achieve goals that are completely at odds with the fundamental tenets of Buddhism. This is at least the case in terms of using Buddhist practices as psychotherapy interventions. In reality, to do anything more would require a complete change in worldview for everyone involved.
Showing posts with label Buddhism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Buddhism. Show all posts
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Sunday, May 6, 2012
"No Self" in Buddhism
In Western societies, we tend to view "the self" a distinct entity that lies at the core of our being. Each person embodies an individual self that is completely separate from everyone and everything else in the universe. The self is experienced as integrated and continuous; even as a person grows and changes, there is still a core "self" that remains the same.
The Buddha asserted that this perception of an integrated, continuous self is just an illusion. Rather than being a separate, distinct entity, what we experience as the "self" actually consists of five overlapping processes. These processes are known as the Five Skandhas (or the Five Aggregates). They are:
1. Physical form: our physical bodies
2. Sensation: the five senses plus our emotions
3. Perception: thinking, conceptualizing, reasoning, etc.
4. Mental formations: thinking habits, biases, willfulness, intention, desire, etc.
5. Consciousness: awareness
These are the things that make up the illusory self. This illusion of self is maintained because we attend only to the surface of our experiences. We identify with our wants and desires, our feelings and memories, our likes and dislikes, and our ideas and beliefs. We see our thoughts and feelings as part of ourselves instead of as passing phenomena. If, however, we can take a step back from these processes and observe them individually as they come and go, we will begin to realize that there is no core, enduring "self" that exists outside of these experiences. Instead, we will start to notice the space between these phenomena. Over time, we become aware that our thoughts, feelings, and sensations, like all other things, materialize and then fall away.
Buddhism identifies "the self" (or the illusion of self) as the source of all suffering. When we are immersed in our physical, mental, and emotional experiences, we inevitably identify with some of these phenomena; they become integral to our sense of who we are (our self concept or sense of self). We become attached to those things we identify with; the threat of losing any one of them is perceived as a threat to our very existence. With attachment comes the fear of loss. However, since all things are inmpermanent, loss is inevitable. We instinctively know this, yet we cling to our attachments in an effort to prolong the inevitable. We are aware of the futility of our efforts, yet we refuse to accept it. This is suffering.
The illusion of self also gives rise to aversion and desire. We divide everything into two categories: "Things I like and want more of" and "Things I don't like and want to avoid." Thus, every thought, every feeling, every experience is seen in terms of how it relates to one's "self:" it is either something I like or something I don't. We embrace what we like and reject what we don't. This accepting and rejecting prevents us from simply experiencing whatever is present, in the moment, as it occurs.
The doctrine of anatta or "no self" is a controversial one. Over the centuries, it has given rise to a number of different interpretations (and consequently, misinterpretations). It is frequently referred to as the most poorly understood of all the Buddha's teachings. Part of the disagreement about how the annata doctrine should be interpreted stems from the fact that it seems inconsistent with other Buddhist teachings, such as the cycle of rebirth. It also seems at odds with other major religious and spiritual traditions, all of which presuppose the existence of some kind of immortal self or soul. Finally, the Buddha himself was very vague in his teachings about the doctrine; this led to confusion about how it should be interpreted.
So what exactly did the Buddha say about anatta? For this, we turn to the Pali Canon. The Pali Canon is a collection of the earliest Buddhist texts. (Buddhist teachings were originally transmitted orally. After several centuries, they were aggregated and transcribed into a collection called the Pali Canon). Nowhere in the Pali Canon does it explain how the anatta doctrine should be interpreted (hence the confusion). The Pali Canon does, however, provide an account of what happened when the Buddha was asked directly whether or not there is a self: he refused to answer the question. He explained that the question itself is misguided and should therefore be set aside. Elsewhere, he teaches that reflection on the self (to include whether or not it exists) causes one to become "enmeshed in views" and thereby leads to suffering.
The concepts of "self" and "no self" imply ownership and identification. They create a mindset in which we categorize things as "me" or "mine" and "not me" or "not mine." The controversy itself creates a false dichotomy that inevitably causes clinging to one extreme or the other. The path to enlightenment, the Buddha taught, is not found in extremes; true liberation is achieved by following the Middle Way.
The Middle Way is neutral and unconditioned. When we observe without judgment the rising and the falling away of all phenomena we see that everything arises from nothing and then goes back to nothing. Even what we identify as "mine" - our thoughts, feelings, and physical sensations - are not exempt. As we examine our experience in this way, we begin to see that our thoughts, feelings, and sensations are "not self" and we release our attachment to them. Many people believe that this is the true meaning of "no self" in Buddhism; a practical, "not self" strategy for liberation from suffering by letting go of one's attachments.
The Buddha asserted that this perception of an integrated, continuous self is just an illusion. Rather than being a separate, distinct entity, what we experience as the "self" actually consists of five overlapping processes. These processes are known as the Five Skandhas (or the Five Aggregates). They are:
1. Physical form: our physical bodies
2. Sensation: the five senses plus our emotions
3. Perception: thinking, conceptualizing, reasoning, etc.
4. Mental formations: thinking habits, biases, willfulness, intention, desire, etc.
5. Consciousness: awareness
These are the things that make up the illusory self. This illusion of self is maintained because we attend only to the surface of our experiences. We identify with our wants and desires, our feelings and memories, our likes and dislikes, and our ideas and beliefs. We see our thoughts and feelings as part of ourselves instead of as passing phenomena. If, however, we can take a step back from these processes and observe them individually as they come and go, we will begin to realize that there is no core, enduring "self" that exists outside of these experiences. Instead, we will start to notice the space between these phenomena. Over time, we become aware that our thoughts, feelings, and sensations, like all other things, materialize and then fall away.
Buddhism identifies "the self" (or the illusion of self) as the source of all suffering. When we are immersed in our physical, mental, and emotional experiences, we inevitably identify with some of these phenomena; they become integral to our sense of who we are (our self concept or sense of self). We become attached to those things we identify with; the threat of losing any one of them is perceived as a threat to our very existence. With attachment comes the fear of loss. However, since all things are inmpermanent, loss is inevitable. We instinctively know this, yet we cling to our attachments in an effort to prolong the inevitable. We are aware of the futility of our efforts, yet we refuse to accept it. This is suffering.
The illusion of self also gives rise to aversion and desire. We divide everything into two categories: "Things I like and want more of" and "Things I don't like and want to avoid." Thus, every thought, every feeling, every experience is seen in terms of how it relates to one's "self:" it is either something I like or something I don't. We embrace what we like and reject what we don't. This accepting and rejecting prevents us from simply experiencing whatever is present, in the moment, as it occurs.
The doctrine of anatta or "no self" is a controversial one. Over the centuries, it has given rise to a number of different interpretations (and consequently, misinterpretations). It is frequently referred to as the most poorly understood of all the Buddha's teachings. Part of the disagreement about how the annata doctrine should be interpreted stems from the fact that it seems inconsistent with other Buddhist teachings, such as the cycle of rebirth. It also seems at odds with other major religious and spiritual traditions, all of which presuppose the existence of some kind of immortal self or soul. Finally, the Buddha himself was very vague in his teachings about the doctrine; this led to confusion about how it should be interpreted.
So what exactly did the Buddha say about anatta? For this, we turn to the Pali Canon. The Pali Canon is a collection of the earliest Buddhist texts. (Buddhist teachings were originally transmitted orally. After several centuries, they were aggregated and transcribed into a collection called the Pali Canon). Nowhere in the Pali Canon does it explain how the anatta doctrine should be interpreted (hence the confusion). The Pali Canon does, however, provide an account of what happened when the Buddha was asked directly whether or not there is a self: he refused to answer the question. He explained that the question itself is misguided and should therefore be set aside. Elsewhere, he teaches that reflection on the self (to include whether or not it exists) causes one to become "enmeshed in views" and thereby leads to suffering.
The concepts of "self" and "no self" imply ownership and identification. They create a mindset in which we categorize things as "me" or "mine" and "not me" or "not mine." The controversy itself creates a false dichotomy that inevitably causes clinging to one extreme or the other. The path to enlightenment, the Buddha taught, is not found in extremes; true liberation is achieved by following the Middle Way.
The Middle Way is neutral and unconditioned. When we observe without judgment the rising and the falling away of all phenomena we see that everything arises from nothing and then goes back to nothing. Even what we identify as "mine" - our thoughts, feelings, and physical sensations - are not exempt. As we examine our experience in this way, we begin to see that our thoughts, feelings, and sensations are "not self" and we release our attachment to them. Many people believe that this is the true meaning of "no self" in Buddhism; a practical, "not self" strategy for liberation from suffering by letting go of one's attachments.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Self and No Self: Psychology and Buddhism
I was asked by a fellow blogger to write about Buddhist views on the self. Since my interest in Buddhist teachings originated in my desire to integrate these ideas into my psychotherapy practice, I decided to compare and constrast how the self is conceptualized in Western psychology and in the Buddhist tradition. This is a rather big undertaking, and one that I will not attempt to complete in one blog post. "Self and No Self: Psychology and Buddhism" will therefore be my first "series" of posts on a single subject.
Over the past twenty years, Western psychology has become increasingly interested in ancient Eastern practices and traditions. Among the first to advocate the usefulness of Eastern precepts to Western mental health practice was Dr. Marsha Linehan, the well known pioneer of Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT). DBT is built around the Buddhist practice of mindfulness. Since the original publication of Linehan's DBT treatment manuals in 1993, mindfulness and other Eastern ideas and practices have gained widespread use among Western mental health practitioners.
Since the days when Freud fathered psychoanlysis -- the first form of modern psychotherapy -- the self has been among the primary foci of psychotherapy practice. As the number of psychological theories have grown, so have the ways in which the self is conceptualized. Almost every psychological theory has its own unique conception of the self. Thus, it is impossible to make any overarching statement to summarize how the self is perceived in the field of psychology. What can be said is that virtually every school of psychology has some conception of the self that influences its ideas about the causes and treatment of mental illness.
This seems to be completely at odds with Buddhist teachings. Fundamental to the Buddhist worldview is the concept of anatman (roughly translated as "no soul," "no self," or "egolessness"), which asserts that there is no such thing as an immortal soul or core self. The Buddha taught that nothing exists that is permanent. Things come into being and things disintegrate. Humans, like everything else in existence, are made of impermanent substances. Human beings have no separate soul or self that exists apart from our material bodies.
Buddhism asserts that the self, which is of central importance to the field of psychology, does not exist. Just as the concept of self is integral to the understanding and practice of psychology the idea of "no self" is fundamental to the understanding and practice of Buddhism. How is it, then, that psychology has embraced Buddhist teachings when the two fields are built around opposing fundamental tenets?
Despite differences in their basic beliefs, Buddhism and Western psychology share a common goal: they both seek to alleviate suffering. Each field approaches this goal in a manner consistent with its own belief system. The Buddha taught that "the self" is an illusion and that this illusion is the source of all suffering. Consequently, Buddhism asserts that the way to relieve suffering is by seeing through the illusion of self, thereby bringing the self to an end. In contrast, Western psychology tends to view the absence of a stable, integrated sense of self as among the most significant causes of suffering. Thus, many psychotherapists believe that building or restoring a strong sense of self is an important part of the treatment process (the primary goal of which is to alleviate suffering). In short, Buddhist practice aims to alleviate suffering through losing the self; psychotherapy seeks to alleviate suffering by helping to build, rebuild, find, strengthen, or define the self.
These are the ideas I will be exploring over the next few weeks. Next week, I will explore in more detail Buddhist views of the self (or no self). The following week, I will try to provide an overview of the major theories about the self in Western psychology. Finally, I will attempt to tie it all together by addressing questions like, "Are the ideas of Buddhist and Western psychotherapy practitioners about the self fundamentally at odds with one another?" "Is there any overlap betwen how Buddhists and Western psychotherapists think about the self?" and "What aspects of Buddhist practice have Western mental health practitioners embraced and what, if any, impact does this have on their ideas about the self?" This is an ambitious undertaking on my part so I ask that you please bear with me. I am also open to feedback throughout this process.
Over the past twenty years, Western psychology has become increasingly interested in ancient Eastern practices and traditions. Among the first to advocate the usefulness of Eastern precepts to Western mental health practice was Dr. Marsha Linehan, the well known pioneer of Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT). DBT is built around the Buddhist practice of mindfulness. Since the original publication of Linehan's DBT treatment manuals in 1993, mindfulness and other Eastern ideas and practices have gained widespread use among Western mental health practitioners.
Since the days when Freud fathered psychoanlysis -- the first form of modern psychotherapy -- the self has been among the primary foci of psychotherapy practice. As the number of psychological theories have grown, so have the ways in which the self is conceptualized. Almost every psychological theory has its own unique conception of the self. Thus, it is impossible to make any overarching statement to summarize how the self is perceived in the field of psychology. What can be said is that virtually every school of psychology has some conception of the self that influences its ideas about the causes and treatment of mental illness.
This seems to be completely at odds with Buddhist teachings. Fundamental to the Buddhist worldview is the concept of anatman (roughly translated as "no soul," "no self," or "egolessness"), which asserts that there is no such thing as an immortal soul or core self. The Buddha taught that nothing exists that is permanent. Things come into being and things disintegrate. Humans, like everything else in existence, are made of impermanent substances. Human beings have no separate soul or self that exists apart from our material bodies.
Buddhism asserts that the self, which is of central importance to the field of psychology, does not exist. Just as the concept of self is integral to the understanding and practice of psychology the idea of "no self" is fundamental to the understanding and practice of Buddhism. How is it, then, that psychology has embraced Buddhist teachings when the two fields are built around opposing fundamental tenets?
Despite differences in their basic beliefs, Buddhism and Western psychology share a common goal: they both seek to alleviate suffering. Each field approaches this goal in a manner consistent with its own belief system. The Buddha taught that "the self" is an illusion and that this illusion is the source of all suffering. Consequently, Buddhism asserts that the way to relieve suffering is by seeing through the illusion of self, thereby bringing the self to an end. In contrast, Western psychology tends to view the absence of a stable, integrated sense of self as among the most significant causes of suffering. Thus, many psychotherapists believe that building or restoring a strong sense of self is an important part of the treatment process (the primary goal of which is to alleviate suffering). In short, Buddhist practice aims to alleviate suffering through losing the self; psychotherapy seeks to alleviate suffering by helping to build, rebuild, find, strengthen, or define the self.
These are the ideas I will be exploring over the next few weeks. Next week, I will explore in more detail Buddhist views of the self (or no self). The following week, I will try to provide an overview of the major theories about the self in Western psychology. Finally, I will attempt to tie it all together by addressing questions like, "Are the ideas of Buddhist and Western psychotherapy practitioners about the self fundamentally at odds with one another?" "Is there any overlap betwen how Buddhists and Western psychotherapists think about the self?" and "What aspects of Buddhist practice have Western mental health practitioners embraced and what, if any, impact does this have on their ideas about the self?" This is an ambitious undertaking on my part so I ask that you please bear with me. I am also open to feedback throughout this process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)