My Self is Probably an Illusion
What if what the Buddha meant about the self being an illusion was that we have this mindset that our self is a permanent entity? That we think there is something unchanging about us that stays consistent over space-time?
Is that possible? Are we permanent beings? Or, somewhat permanent? Impermanence is a big theme in Buddhism. So, maybe this is part of it. The pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, Heraclitus once wrote something to the effect of:
A man cannot step in the same river twice. For the river is different, and so is the man.
Heraclitus believed that everything in the universe was constantly in flux. That may be a piece of ancient wisdom that holds up today. But was he right? Could he have vibed on a similar thought as the Buddha a couple hundred years later? That impermanence applies to human beings too? The river metaphor makes sense, because the water keeps flowing, the molecules keep changing as they pass through the river channel. But is the same true for us? Metaphorically or literally? We do constantly change and grow. Our interests wax and wane. Sometimes our hopes and goals shift. And our worldviews often evolve as we age. Is the thing we think of as our “self” a fluid entity? I’ve read that every seven years or so, every cell and molecule in our body gets replaced. Does that mean that on a micro level we actually are a different person? Because we are made up of different matter? Are we just like rivers? Ancient, dusky rivers? Constantly in flux, constantly flowing? Ever-changing?
Is that the illusion the Buddha taught us about?
So maybe the “self” is just not a constant, but a variable, and to think of it as fixed is the illusion?
I don’t know. Sometimes I struggle to decide what I believe. That is never easy. Sometimes arguments play out in my head. Oftentimes, it is not just one side vs. another but multiple ideas duking it out.
What if that is what the Buddha meant? That the illusion is that the “self” is a singular entity? We do seem to feel that our self is one person, one identity — singular. But is that true? If it were, would it be so hard to make decisions? To determine what we believe or want?
Neuroscientist David Eagleman has written that our brains function more like an angry group of parliamentarians all arguing for their viewpoints or policies. That our brains are a chaotic multiplicity of competing viewpoints. And yet, they give us the impression of singularity.
Could the Buddha have understood that long before the advent of functional MRIs and EEGs? Is that what a lifetime of meditation can do? Lead you to “self” understanding? Or, understanding that the “self” is an illusion? What a paradox!
So, could the Buddha have meant it in both ways? That the “self” is neither constant nor singular?
Perhaps that is a possibility that my non-self can entertain. Or, those are both possibilities my non-self can consider.
Those were weird sentences.
It is strange to think about your non-self. But I still struggle with who is doing the thinking. Or did we settle the issue earlier that it is not that the self doesn’t exist, but that our conception of self is what the Buddha taught was the illusion?