Reflection 4: The False Self (Buddhism) One Of The Key Disti ✓ Solved

Reflection 4: THE FALSE SELF (Buddhism) One of the key distinctions

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 many seem radical – i.e., you do not really exist – most people’s experience tells them that the self is not as “self-apparent” as we might wish it to be. Most people actually find that “being oneself” is one of the most difficult things to achieve in everyday life. We also know that the person we are in one mood is not at all the same as in a different mood; or that we are one kind of person with some people (friends) and an entirely different person with others (parents, teachers).

We can be multiple people in a day depending on what happens and whom we meet. We also know that rather than living in the moment, we can spend much of our time trying to recapture the past that’s long gone or anticipating a future that hasn’t come yet, which, according to Buddhists, is another way we inflict suffering and disappointment on ourselves.

In your reflective paper for this unit, try to explain all the ways the Buddhist view of the self seems to capture your own or others’ experiences. Why is it so hard to be yourself? What or who stops you? Why does the self seem so impermanent and mutable? Do you think that there is some kind of permanent psychological entity that’s “you,” or is your own sense of being dependent on many things you don’t have any control over?

If so, what can we mean when we refer to the self at all? If not, why is the self still so prone to misrepresentation to others – and ourselves? And finally - what makes this a religious or spiritual question after all? Your reflective (but critical) response should be at least 500 words and support your thoughts and arguments with citations (in text, author-page) from the readings as appropriate. If you are using only the class readings, a works cited is not necessary, but any materials you may wish to bring in should be cited properly with a correct bibliographic reference.

Paper For Above Instructions

The Buddhist concept of "anatman," or "no-self," offers a profound lens through which individuals can reflect on their own experiences of identity and the challenges of self-understanding. The idea posits that what we perceive as "self" is merely a collection of transient impressions and experiences. This view resonates deeply with the struggles that many people face in their daily lives as they grapple with their authentic selves in various social contexts. The problem of "being oneself" often feels insurmountable due to external pressures, internal conflicts, and a lack of self-awareness.

One primary reason it can be hard to be oneself is the influence of societal expectations. From a young age, individuals are molded by societal norms and the opinions of others, leading to a perpetual struggle between conforming to external expectations and maintaining one's sense of self. For example, a student might feel compelled to meet academic standards or social norms that differ significantly from their intrinsic desires or abilities. This dissonance creates a landscape where personal identity becomes fragmented, as people curate various personas to fit different contexts. The notion of "going along to get along" often overshadows authenticity (Goffman, 1959).

Furthermore, the self's impermanence and mutability highlight the transient nature of our identities. Just as the Buddhist teachings assert, mood changes, life experiences, and personal growth can radically alter how individuals view themselves. One's identity can shift dramatically depending on the circumstances of their day-to-day life, leading to the realization that constant adaptation is necessary for survival in an ever-changing environment. This realization parallels the idea of “flux” in Buddhism, where attachment to a static self leads to suffering (Harvey, 2000). Individuals experience different aspects of themselves influenced by their emotions, experiences, and relationships at any given moment.

The question of whether a permanent psychological entity exists is complex and controversial. Many people feel a persistent inner dialogue or sense of continuity—that “core self” that appears to connect their various experiences. However, upon closer examination, this sense of self can often be revealed as a product of memory, narrative, and social relationships. As William James (1890) articulated, the "self" is a narrative constructed from the recollections of past actions, current feelings, and projections for the future, suggesting that it is not a fixed entity but rather a fluid construction.

This fluidity raises the question of what it means to refer to the self if it is indeed mutable and context-dependent. When individuals articulate their self-identity, they may inadvertently misrepresent their true selves, both to others and themselves. This misrepresentation often stems from internalized societal values and expectations that shape the self-concept. For example, people might present a version of themselves that aligns with what they believe others expect, a concept reflected in the "social self" versus the "true self" dichotomy (Harter, 2012).

As individuals navigate the complexities of identity formation, they often face challenges in communicating their true selves, leading to feelings of disconnect, isolation, and existential questioning. Ultimately, this struggle becomes spiritual, as it prompts inquiries into the nature of one’s existence, the quest for authenticity, and the yearning for deeper connections with others and oneself. Acknowledging the impermanence of the self allows for a more compassionate approach to understanding one's identity and alleviating the suffering tied to rigid self-perceptions.

In conclusion, the Buddhist view of the self captures the essence of human experience in its fluidity, impermanence, and multiplicity. As individuals confront the complexities of identity and self-representation, it becomes vital to recognize that the journey towards authenticity involves understanding and embracing the mutable nature of the self. This acknowledgment can alleviate the burdens of societal expectations and foster greater contentment in living in the moment.

References

• Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books.
• Harter, S. (2012). The Construction of the Self: Developmental and Sociocultural Foundations. Guilford Press.
• Harvey, P. (2000). An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History, and Practices. Cambridge University Press.
• James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. Henry Holt and Company.
• McLeod, S. (2008). The Self-Concept. Simply Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/self-concept.html
• Shapiro, S. L., & Schwartz, G. E. (2000). Stress Management and Resilience Training. The Journal of American College Health, 48(3), 164-170.
• Neff, K. D. (2003). Self-Compassion: An Alternative Conceptualization of a Healthy Attitude Toward Oneself. Self and Identity, 2(2), 85-101.
• Hermans, H. J. M. (2001). The Dialogical Self: Toward a Theory of Personal and Cultural Positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7(3), 243-281.
• Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of Life. The Guilford Press.
• Rogers, C. R. (1961). On Becoming a Person: A Therapist's View of Psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin.