Do I have a self?

Buddha teaches that there is not-self (1). This is, perhaps, one of the most difficult concepts to grasp in Buddhism. At the same time, it is an incredibly fascinating one. Some of the things you learn from modern psychology and Buddhist teaching about "self" can really give you shivers, but for most part it is an eye opening and liberating experience. 

Here, I would like to share my essay on what I have learned about not-self at the course on Buddhism and Modern Psychology, Princeton University (Coursera) as well as my own ideas about it. I will also  be facilitating a meditating group meeting on this topic in Helsinki Meditation Group in English in a couple of weeks (please check for updates here). Thus, this post is also an introduction to the discussion.

A short essay on not-self

There are at least two interpretations for what the Buddha might have meant about not-self (1, 2). According to Bhikkhu Bodhi  the interpretation is a context dependent (3). To understand either of the not-self interpretations we should introduce a concept of how the Buddha understands what constitutes a human being. In the Buddha’s understanding there are five aggregates to a human being: consciousness, form, feeling, perception and mental formations (2, 4).

The first interpretation of non-self states that self cannot be found in any of five aggregates (1, 2). Buddha says self must fulfill two conditions to be valid: it needs to permanent in time and have ultimate control over all the five parts. None of five aggregates fulfill any of these conditions, thus self does not exist.

Second interpretation is that there is a self, but it is not associated with the five components. If there is self, it is not in any of the five aggregates. It is only we who perceive self and identify it with physical and mental parts of our being (3). Self, if it exists it is an abstraction and can not take any concrete form.

Intellectually, it is incredibly difficult to describe a self for quite a simple reason as split-brain experiment suggests (5). Split-brain experiments indicate that left hemisphere is interested in the story we tell the World, but not how accurate it is. Right brain can’t “talk” even though it might see the world accurately (5, 6). Left brain is the one that does the talking, but its primary functions is to describe coherent stories. To make a coherent story the left brain might modify or even make the story false and valid as long as a story is believable. In summary, self if it exists, can’t be described in words. That is why no-self concept needs to be experienced and understood through meditation. However, Shinzen Young (7) warns that even in meditation one will observe different expressions of not-self. This will depend on how you approach this question in your meditation. However, despite the difference in meditative experience or difficulties to describe not-self in words, all professional meditators and a number of psychologists agree that there is no self.

Intellectually and spiritually, I am of a position that a self, a graspable and a measurable entity, doesn’t exist. I justify my claim through the examples of how human babies experience the World and through an evolutionary trade-off theory (8).

Human babies, according to Lacan's suggested theory (9), are unable to identify themselves as individuals until they are 15-18 months.  Despite they suggested inability to identify themselves as individuals, they are still able to be functional as human beings; they express their emotions and their needs. However, they don’t identify their emotions and needs as "me that demands". Thus babies exist without the graspable self or the identity until they learn to separate themselves from other constitutes of the world.

A second reason I think self doesn’t exist is because it is an evolutionary trade off of a survival (8). The natural selection favored storytellers and those who believed them. Such people convinced themselves and others that climbing downs trees and standing on two feet will give them an advantage in a hostile environment. It seems plausible to me that only by recognizing a fact you can control environment, at some extent, would create an illusion that you are in control of everything else. In such case, with no additional evidence, it is logical to believe there is someone inside you making such decisions. Such believe gave us power to create an environment that we life in now. The fact to that we think we control the world around us is an illusion, did not bother evolution. All that mattered to evolution is that this self-deception mechanism allowed us to pass our genes successfully to a next generation. Thus, over the years we became very good in self-deception.

I am far from knowing all the nuances of Buddhist thought on not-self or all theories of modern psychology to arrive at the definite conclusion if we really don't have self. My understanding and current scientific evidence suggest that there is little room for a physical self in any of the Buddha's suggested five aggregate of a human being.

References:

1. Ñanamoli Thera (translated from Pali). Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic. Link.
2. Robert Wright, Lecture 3, The Buddha’s Discourse on the Not-self. Buddhism and Modern Psychology (Coursera), Princeton University. 
3. Robert Wright and Bhikkhu Bodhi, Interview. Link.
4. Thanissaro Bhikkhu. The Five Aggregates, A Study Guide. Link.
5. The split brain: A tale of two halves. Link.
6. Robert Wright Lecture 3, Modern Psychology and the Self. Buddhism and Modern Psychology (Coursera), Princeton University, 
7. Shinzen Young, Interview, Link.
8. Life history evolution. Link.
9. Jacques Lacan Wikipedia page. Link.