This post is taken from scholarly articles by Terry Marks-Tarlow and Mark Epstein, and from David Kalupahana's book The Principles of Buddhist Psychology
Note: After reading, studying and contemplating this topic for months I had an epiphany - the idea of no self is not as mind bendingly complicated as I've been making it. Human beings are not separate from the rest of the beings on the planet. We are just another part of what is. When I stop and let myself float I can feel the energy of the world and I catch a glimpse of the peace that comes with no self. Our problem lies in the fact that we can think and relate to ourselves - our ego is constantly making concrete out of wind, trying to make us special and apart. This causes us to suffer and to feel lonely. It is good to just allow and be a part of everything.
In Western culture, the word self usually refers to a unique, inherent core identity at the center of each person. Belief in the self is deeply entrenched in popular, scientific and philosophical traditions. In fact, the reality of an authentic self is normally taken entirely for granted. Beginning at an early age and continuing throughout a person’s life, the use of words such as me, me and mine reinforces the ideas of individuality and separateness. This in turn shapes how we explain the world and our place in it.
Reflecting the modern fascination and enchantment with the self, one of the few words recently added to the English dictionary is selfie — which is defined as a “complimentary self portrait photographs, typically taken with a smart phone and then displayed on social media”. The Oxford Dictionary even declared “selfie” as word of the year. Truly, the selfie seems to represent the apex of modern misunderstanding about the truth of the nature of the self and correspondingly, searching for happiness and equanimity by using pride and self admiration.
The assumption of the existence of the self has been a major preoccupation with psychologists. In 1890 the father of psychology, William James, offered a broad definition of the self: "In its widest sense a man's Self is the sum total of all that can call his, not only his body and his psychic powers (normal cognitive activity), but his clothes and his wife and children, his ancestors and friends, his reputation and works, his land and horses, and yacht and bank-account." Through the years many psychologists have offered their own ideas of a permanent self and while much has changed since the days of the early personality theorists, contemporary psychological theory does not address the standing of a more fundamental issue - the validity of an authentic, bounded and individualistic self.
In stark contrast to traditional Western views, the Buddha discovered through his mental training and awakening that the self is a fiction, an abstraction we continue to construct over the course of a lifetime. According to the Buddha one can observe and understand mental processes without any need for an innate "I" at the center of the experience. There is thinking, there is feeling and there is perception, but these activities do not require a substantial self as an authority except as a linguistic convention. In actuality, there is nothing authentic about the self except our belief in it. This realization is at the heart of the Buddha's truth of anatta or no self.
The doctrine of Anatta is the Buddha's most unique and radical teaching. Mark Epstein, psychiatrist and author, has said that, "this emphasis on the lack of a particular, substantive agent is the most distinctive aspect of traditional Buddhist psychological thought." Even though most people will commonly agree that our body, thoughts, feelings and experiences change over time, they also believe that underneath the change is a unique and consistent self and a majority of people still believe in the continuation of the self after physical death.
Similar to the famous conclusion of the philosopher, Rene Descartes, "I think therefore I am" it is normal to identify what we do, think and feel with our self - our I, me, and mine. For example, I am happy, this is me and the car is mine. For the Buddha, the roots of dukkha, or suffering, are found in such identifications. These identifications, although they are only conventional labels, once believed in, become psychologically established and propagate a view of the world in which we feel separate and alienated from out inner and outer experiences. Believing in the separateness of you and I and attempting to maintain, nourish and propagate this identification of I - often at the expense of others - we cause ourselves and others much grief and suffering through our self deception.
While it has been said that the Buddha wanted to destroy the self or the I, this is incorrect, simply because there is no permanent and substantial basis of personal identity called self to destroy. The teaching of anatta is in no way a denial of the empirical reality of the individual personality. The Buddha taught that the individual personality is a functional, unified and casually interconnected integrity operating on many levels. Personality factors are consistent yet are also ever changing. While recognizing that the I or self is a fluid cognitive fiction, the Buddha also understood its convenient and helpful functionality. The Buddha himself used such terms and I, you, he, she, person, etc. but he did so only to facilitate communication in conventional speech with conventional understanding. So, the Buddha teaches to not destroy but transcend or surpass the ignorance which come from attributing a substantial reality to the self.
We see now that as much as the Buddha emphasized the elimination of egotism, he did not intend the annihilation or depersonalization of what modern psychology labels the empirical self or the individual experiences. The terms I or self are pragmatic linguistic conventions that reflect the living experience that all conscious living beings have. For the idea of no self doesn't mean we don't exist or that we are robots with no volition to act in the world, instead we are constantly changing beings, always in flux. Giving it a fixed name and identity is just a convention that humans came up with so we can talk about it. The whole idea of self is a fiction or narrative. The problem is that as soon as we attach labels and concepts onto something, our egos start objectifying it, conclusively establish and create fantastic stories to make something static and permanent out of it - and that begins our point of illusion and suffering.
As you can see, the concept of no self represents a challenge to the Western mind.
