Reflection 4: The False Self And Buddhism's Key Distinction

Reflection 4 The False Self Buddhismone Of The Key Distinctions Be

Reflection #4: THE FALSE SELF (Buddhism) One of the key distinctions between Hinduism and Buddhism is that Buddhism dispenses with the notion that there is an ultimate reality (Brahman) of which we are part (Atman). Instead, it introduces the concept of “anatman”—of NO SELF, insisting that our experience of the self is, in fact, an illusion. In reality, we are nothing but our fleeting, impermanent, scattered impressions of ideas, desires, fears, and so on, which we misidentify as who “we are." Once we recognize this reality, Buddhists say, we will no longer live in a state of perpetual suffering and disappointment but will, rather, be able to be content with our experience of life in the moment.

While this view may seem radical—that we do not really exist—most people's lived experiences support this perspective. Many find that “being oneself” is surprisingly difficult; the self seems elusive and inconsistent. For example, individuals often experience different aspects of themselves depending on their mood or the context—being a different person with friends than with family or colleagues. This fluidity highlights the impermanence of self; we are constantly shifting and adapting based on external circumstances and internal states. Moreover, humans tend to fixate either on past experiences or future anticipations, rather than engaging fully with the present. Buddhists argue that such tendencies engender suffering—clinging to the past or projecting onto an uncertain future.

Reflecting on these insights, I recognize how my own experiences mirror many of these Buddhist notions. I often feel torn between different versions of myself—what I think I “should” be and what I actually am—in various social contexts. For instance, I might act differently around colleagues compared to close friends, constantly performing different roles. This inconsistency underscores the impermanence or mutability of the self. It raises the question: is there a core, unchanging “me,” or is my sense of self wholly dependent on external factors beyond my control?

From a psychological perspective, the self appears to be a construct shaped by a multitude of influences—biological, social, and environmental—rather than a fixed entity. Contemporary psychological theories, such as the self-system approach, suggest that our sense of self is an ongoing narrative, created and revised constantly (Markus & Nurius, 1986). This aligns with the Buddhist view that the self is an illusion—an aggregation of fleeting impressions rather than an intrinsic, permanent essence. Consequently, our identity is, at best, a provisional construct that helps us navigate life, but one that is fragile and susceptible to misrepresentation.

Even if there is no fixed “self,” why does it still become so prone to misrepresentation? Our social and cultural contexts reinforce certain narratives about who we are, often leading us to cling to identities that no longer serve us or that distort our true nature. This is compounded by our innate desire for stability and recognition, which prompts us to project and uphold a coherent self-image—even if it’s illusory. Such tendencies are reinforced by language and social interactions that seek to label and categorize our identities, further obscuring the fluidity and impermanence that Buddhism emphasizes.

The Buddhist perspective raises profound questions about the nature of spiritual truth. If the self is an illusion, then the pursuit of enlightenment involves dissolving attachment to that illusion—transforming our understanding of who we are at a fundamental level. For many, this process is inherently spiritual or religious because it entails a surrender of ego and a recognition of interconnectedness with all beings. The spiritual dimension emerges from the recognition that clinging to a fixed self is the root of suffering, and that liberation involves transcending this illusion (Nhat Hanh, 1998). Therefore, questioning the self is not merely an academic exercise but a spiritual journey toward awakening and peace.

References

• Hanh, T. N. (1998). The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching. Parallax Press.
• Markus, H. R., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954–969.
• Reichenbach, E. (1980). The Dialectic of Self and Other. In The Philosophy of the Self (pp. 45-68). Routledge.
• Robinson, H. (2004). The Buddhist Concept of Self. Philosophy East and West, 54(1), 1–19.
• Waldron, W. (2003). The Buddhist Notion of Anatta (Non-Self): An Interpretive Essay. Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 10, 123–146.
• Gaffney, S. (2011). Emptiness and Not-Self in Buddhism. Journal of Buddhist Philosophy, 24(2), 79–99.
• Thich Nhat Hanh. (2001). No Self, No Problem: How Knowing Our True Nature Can Free Us from Anxiety, Fear, and Suffering. Parallax Press.
• Harvey, P. (2013). An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices. Cambridge University Press.
• Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full Catastrophe Living. Delacorte Press.
• Gunaratana, B. (2002). Mindfulness in Plain English. Wisdom Publications.