Dharma Quote of the Week from Snow Lion Publications:
The only conclusion that can legitimately be reached is that the self is a fiction, a mere label superimposed onto the aggregates, a concept created and reified by the mind but lacking any substantial reality. This reasoning process alone does not eliminate the idea, however; it merely weakens it. Because it is so deeply ingrained, the idea of self is only eliminated through repeated meditation on the reasonings of no-self, which enable the yogin to become progressively more familiar with the understanding that no self or essence exists. The Dalai Lama concludes that "when such a realization is maintained and reinforced through constant meditation and familiarization, you will be able to develop it into an intuitive or direct experience." (From Path to Bliss.)Many Westerners reject this notion, contending that it would be a sort of cognitive suicide. The idea that the self (which is assumed even by people who reject religions that propound the idea) does not exist is profoundly disturbing to many non-Buddhists, but in Buddhist thought the denial of self is not seen as constituting a loss, but rather is viewed as a profoundly liberating insight. Since the innate idea of self implies an autonomous, unchanging essence, if such a thing were in fact the core of one's being, it would mean that change would be impossible, and one would be stuck being just what one is right now. Because there is no such self, however, we are open toward the future. One's nature is never fixed and determined, and so through engaging in Buddhist practice one can exert control over the process of change and progress in wisdom, compassion, patience, and other good qualities. One can even become a buddha, a fully awakened being who is completely liberated from all the frailties, sufferings, and limitations of ordinary beings. But this is only possible because there is no permanent and static self, no soul that exists self-sufficiently, separated from the ongoing process of change.
~ From A Concise Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism by John Powers, published by Snow Lion Publications.
3 comments:
So how does the idea of no-self fit with the internal family system's concept of self?
I have found the most peace through Buddhist teachings and practices, yet I'm not sure how this fits. As someone whose internal system is very polarized and fragmented, I definitely recognize those times when my Self is present and leading.
Hi Amanda,
Good question - and I think Schwartz mistakes the Self (Jungian) with the idea of Buddhanature -- not quite the same.
We have a core, authentic Self sometimes known as the "witness" or "observing self" in some circles -- this is what Schwartz is getting at, and in my mind it's crucial to our mental health.
Some Buddhist shrinks (like Mark Epstein) like to bypass the Self and go straight to no-self, but I see that as a horrible mistake with anyone who has suffered trauma -- dissociation is easy for trauma survivors, being present to the Self isn't.
If you're interested in the psychology of this stuff, I highly recommend Integral Psychology by Ken Wilber - an introductory text that assumes some basic knowledge of psychology, then places it in an integral context.
The book doesn't really go into trauma, but it's very useful to see the meta-framework.
Peace,
Bill
Great to see at least a couple people out there talking about the connection between Internal Family Systems and this Epstein material. I learned about IFS about 1.5 years ago, read the Schwartz book, and found the model to seem really sound. I've done a bunch of IFST with myself with some good results. I only just learned about Epstein a few weeks ago and am just finishing reading "Thoughts Without a Thinker."
It seems to me that the issues here are more semantic than anything else, kind of like in Chaos Theory where chaos means something very particular a totally unlike the random/disorder that most people connote with the word.
Epstein is constantly referring to ego and to the observer, and this seems to me to correspond directly to Schwartz's "self." Indeed, Schwartz's conception seems to be of self as an entity that is pure observation and compassion, devoid of any particular personality specifics. It's hard to imagine that this "self" could have anything to do with the "true self" that people often refer to. Indeed, Schwartz basically says you have all these parts, each with a distinct personality, and they get burdened with behaviors that seem functional at the time but later become dysfunctional, and all one needs is to remove those burdens and let those parts come out from under them. This sounds much more like what people talk about as "true self" lying under "false self" -- and it's got everything to do with all the *other* parts in the internal system, nothing particular to do with the part Schwartz calls "self."
This is why it all seems to me semantic confusion more than conceptual disagreement. Since Epstein makes clear that psychotherapy is a valuable complement to meditation, but at least in this book he doesn't espouse any particular model of the psyche or any very particular approach to psychotherapy, it seems to me that IFS could really bring a lot, informing the psychotherapy side of the psychotherapy/meditation complementarity in a really big way....
Post a Comment